list_gifts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the two API endpoints and the conditional behavior (search vs list). It also details the return structure. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or free of side effects, which would be beneficial.

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 well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, usage, API calls, and return structure. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted sentences.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately documents the return structure (dict with total_found, returned, items) and key fields. It covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, and output. The tool is simple and the description is 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?

The schema already has descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining how the presence of search_keyword triggers a different endpoint and that max_results limits the returned items. This extra context goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 lists gifts and supports keyword search. It specifies the resource (gifts) and the verb (list/search). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_gift or update_gift by focusing on read-only listing.

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 includes a dedicated '用途' section explaining when to use the tool: to browse or search gift settings. It also clarifies the behavior based on whether a keyword is provided. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with other list tools.

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