item.mine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a listing/read action and clearly explains the default status (仅在售/online) and available filter categories (sold/off-shelf/all). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the output schema covers return-shape expectations.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core action and scope, then efficiently adds default and filter behavior. There is no redundant information.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. The main gap is that status filter values are described conceptually rather than as precise accepted strings, which an agent needs for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description compensates partially by giving business meaning to status values (在售/已卖出/已下架/全部). However, it does not provide exact string enum values for status, and the limit parameter is not explained.

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?

Description clearly states the action (列出/列表) and resource (当前账号发布的商品, items published by current account). It is distinct from siblings like search.items because it is explicitly scoped to the current account, though it does not name alternatives.

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?

It implies usage for retrieving the current account's own published items and describes default and optional status filters. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search.items or other item-related tools, nor does it state exclusions.

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