list_combos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not mention pagination behavior (despite page/limit parameters), the meaning of 'all' given those parameters, or any other behavioral details. Basic transparency is present but lacks depth.

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 purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description is sufficient to distinguish it from siblings and convey its core function, but the ambiguity between 'all' and the presence of page/limit parameters leaves a minor gap in completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it leaves all parameter semantics to the schema, which is acceptable but provides no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool lists all combo/bundle products of the site, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('combo/bundle products'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_combo_items by explicitly redirecting users there for composition details.

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 a clear alternative: 'Use get_combo_items for combo composition details.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (listing combos) versus when to use a sibling tool (getting composition details), satisfying the explicit alternative requirement.

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