list_bundle_items

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that this is a GET (read) operation, but does not discuss response format, pagination, required permissions, or the effect of the optional bundle_version parameter. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral metadata.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the verb, resource, and endpoint, making it maximally concise while still being informative.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned list contains, how to handle pagination, or how the bundle_version parameter affects results. The agent is left with significant ambiguity about the tool's full behavior.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (bundle_id: '方案 ID', bundle_version: '方案版本'), so the schema already explains their meanings. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation using the verb '取得' (get) and the resource '方案商品選項列表' (bundle item options list), and includes the exact endpoint. This distinguishes it as a list operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_bundle_item or list_item_options.

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?

No usage guidance is present. The description only defines what the tool does, without mentioning when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should be avoided. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint and parameter names.

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