SORNKan Services Catalog (สอนกาน)

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what the response contains (packages, prices, contact links), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an invalid slug, or rate limits.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and scope before the enumerated return fields. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, going as far as enumerating the returned fields. It could be stronger only by noting error behavior for an unknown slug.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the slug values (web, ai-app, chatbot) that the schema already lists, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('ดูรายละเอียดบริการหนึ่งรายการ' = view details of one service item) and scopes it to a single record via slug. The singular 'one item' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the list_services/list_family_products siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'one service by slug' phrasing suggests this is the detail-fetch counterpart to the list tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_services/list_family_products, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags that สอนแชท is 'coming soon, not yet open', which is real behavioral context about the returned data. However it never states the operation is read-only/safe, nor describes return shape or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the family first, then the members, then the availability caveat. No filler, though the all-in-one sentence packs the caveat at the very end rather than surfacing it.

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 parameterless, annotation-free list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (the four SORN products) and one important caveat about availability. Only the format/ordering of the list is unstated, a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated product names add domain meaning even though no parameters exist.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('รายการผลิตภัณฑ์ในครอบครัว SORN' — list products in the SORN family) and even enumerates the members. It never names get_service or list_services to differentiate this 'products' tool from those 'services' tools, so it misses the sibling-differentiation bonus.

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 qualifier 'ที่ครูไปใช้เองได้' (that teachers can use themselves) implies a use context — self-service teacher-facing products — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling service tools. Usage must be inferred.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/list operation and hints that results include links to service pages, but says nothing about authentication, pagination, result ordering, or the return shape — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It leans slightly promotional ('รับทำเว็บไซต์ สร้างแอป AI และ LINE Chatbot') where a functional statement would earn its place better, but it is compact.

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 simple, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic scope and even names the returned content. However, with no annotations and no return schema, it should at least note the read-only nature and whether results are paginated or complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is required.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('รายการบริการ' = list of services) and enumerates the service categories returned (websites, AI apps, LINE Chatbot, service-page links). It is clear what the tool does, but it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from its siblings get_service and list_family_products.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_service or list_family_products, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the enumeration entry point from the name alone.

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