Get product

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but no details about behavior (e.g., error handling, permission requirements, return format) are disclosed. This is a minimal, non-informative transparency.

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 extremely concise, but it merely restates the tool's name in another language. It is not front-loaded with useful information and lacks structure; while efficient, it is under-specified.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not explain the parameter, return value, or how this fits among the many sibling tools, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'manage_number' parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field name, so the agent cannot infer what value to provide.

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 '商品取得（items.get）' which clearly means 'Get product', with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish among sibling tools like rms_search_products or rms_bulk_get_products, though 'get' implies 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it fetches a single product by manage_number or when search/bulk operations would be more appropriate.

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