读取商品

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral limit—only the first 20 variants are returned—which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. Every element—reading a product and the variant limit—earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 simple read-by-id tool, the description provides the key operational fact: it returns one product and at most 20 variants. The required parameter format is fully specified in the schema, and annotations cover safety. It does not describe return fields, but no output schema exists and the returned resource is clearly named.

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?

There is only one parameter, `id`, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain that the id must be a Shopify product GID or otherwise add meaning beyond the field name and pattern. The schema's pattern helps, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 a concrete read operation on a specific resource ('读取一个商品') and adds a precise scope ('前 20 个变体'). This clearly distinguishes it from write tools like shopify_update_product and from search tools like shopify_search_products.

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 implies usage when a single product and its first variants are needed, but it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as shopify_search_products for finding products. The intended use case is reasonably inferable, not explicitly routed.

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