list_item_options_selection

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only includes the HTTP method GET, which implies a read-only operation, but provides no other details such as authentication requirements, pagination, or side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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, focused sentence that states the purpose and endpoint without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient and well-structured for a simple GET list operation.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what 'options selection' means in relation to the item, what fields the list contains, or how the keyword filter behaves. This leaves an agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly without further exploration.

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% for the two parameters (id and keyword), and the schema already includes meaningful descriptions (e.g., keyword filters by product name or vendor SKU). The tool description itself 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 states the tool's purpose clearly: '取得商品選項選擇列表' (Get product option selection list) with the explicit HTTP endpoint. It identifies the verb (get) and resource (product options selection list), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like list_item_options or list_item_selection, so it misses the top 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 alternatives such as list_item_options or list_item_selection. No scenarios, exclusions, or alternative mentions are given, leaving usage entirely implied by the name.

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