get_source_cart

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does add behavioral context by mentioning the output is a 'compact tree view' and shows the 'full element hierarchy', which goes beyond a simple 'get' statement. However, it does not disclose any limitations, error conditions, or side effects, though the getter nature implicitly suggests non-destructiveness. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get all cart global sources with compact tree view') followed by a valuable clarification ('Shows full element hierarchy — no need to call get_global_source_detail separately'). Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool returns (compact tree view with full hierarchy) and its benefit over a sibling. It does not dive into the exact structure of the tree, but given the simplicity of the tool and strong sibling context, the completeness is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds nothing about parameters because there are none to explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('cart global sources') plus the output format ('compact tree view'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_global_source_detail by explicitly stating that calling the latter separately is unnecessary, making the tool's scope clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an explicit usage hint by stating 'no need to call get_global_source_detail separately', which tells the agent when this tool can replace an alternative. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.