客服账号列表

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. '列出' implies a safe read operation, and the description reveals what the result contains ('mmsId + 名称'). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or absence of side effects, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 short sentence contains the action, resource, output fields, and the intended companion tool. There is no filler or repetition of what is already in the schema.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the return fields and explains how to use the result. It does not spell out the exact output shape, but the tool is simple and the schema covers the only parameter.

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%, so the optional shop parameter is already documented with its default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond restating the shop context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出' / list) and exact resource ('店铺的客服账号'), and specifies the output fields ('mmsId + 名称'). This clearly distinguishes it from data-focused siblings like pdd_chat_data, which concern chat content rather than account metadata.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: obtain mmsId values for use as the mmsId parameter of pdd_chat_export. It does not state exclusions or conditions when an alternative would be preferred, so it lacks the full when/when-not structure.

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