list_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. '列出' implies a read-only listing operation and '免费' offers cost information, but the description does not disclose pagination, filtering, authorization, or side-effect behavior. The disclosure is minimal.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. Every token contributes something, but the brevity crosses into under-specification since it omits parameter context.

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 one-parameter tool, a complete description would explain the required drama_id and the output of listing. The current description mentions the product library and free cost but leaves the parameter and return behavior unspecified. This is inadequate for confident invocation.

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 only parameter, drama_id, is completely unexplained in the description. An agent cannot infer the meaning or format of the required parameter from the text. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 clear verb and resource: '列出商品库' (list the product library), which tells an agent this is a listing operation for products. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar listing tools like get_props or get_assets, but the phrase '商品库' provides reasonable scope clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes the tool is free ('免费'), which is not usage direction. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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