list_bundles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this is a GET request, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, error conditions, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency beyond the basic HTTP method.

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 that states the action and the endpoint. It wastes no words and is immediately understandable. The brevity is appropriate for a simple list operation, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Despite having a clear purpose, the description lacks important contextual details. There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return structure (e.g., paginated list, fields returned), but it does not. It also does not mention pagination or sorting capabilities, even though the schema includes such parameters. Given the complexity of the schema (6 optional parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 has 100% coverage, with each of the 6 parameters already having descriptive text in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics or context beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, this baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation comprehensively.

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's purpose: to retrieve a list of product bundles (取得商品方案列表) and provides the API endpoint (GET /v1/bundles). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_product_bundles', which likely has a similar purpose. The verb 'get' and resource 'bundles' are specific, but the lack of differentiation from siblings prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools such as 'list_product_bundles' or 'get_bundle'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only implied usage is 'when you need a list of bundles,' which is not explicit guidance.

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