list_item_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the endpoint and resource type without mentioning pagination, sorting, read-only guarantees, authentication requirements, or any side effects.

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 concise sentence that includes the resource, action, and endpoint. It is front-loaded and contains 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 the schema providing parameter details, the description omits important context such as the return format, pagination behavior, sorting semantics, or when this tool should be preferred over similar list tools. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (id, page, limit, sort_field, sort_order) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 specifies a concrete action ('取得商品選項列表' - get item options list) and identifies the exact resource via the endpoint path. It is clear and distinct from siblings like list_item_options_selection and list_item_option_inventories, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as list_item_options_selection or list_item_option_inventories likely overlap in scope, but the description does not clarify selection criteria or exclusions.

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