query_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. '查询' (query) implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or access requirements. It adds minimal context beyond the name.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and then filters. No redundant or filler information.

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?

For a list query with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core purpose and filter categories but omits response shape, pagination/default behavior, and sorting. The schema covers parameters, so the gap is mainly around output and ordering semantics. Adequate but incomplete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics—'keyword, location, status' paraphrases what the schema already documents, and 'etc.' does not expand on categoryId/isNearlyExpired.

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 '查询物品列表' (query items list), a specific verb+resource with filter dimensions (keyword, location, status). The plural 'list' inherently distinguishes it from the sibling get_item, which suggests single-item retrieval.

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 use case is implied by the word 'list' and the filter options, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention alternatives like get_item for single-item details or add_item for creation.

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