Get Ecommerce Design

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: persisted artifacts report dimensions, byte count and SHA256, and failed/unknown/cancelled states return isError while preserving all results. It also disambiguates queue state from design completion, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it returns first, then the 'does not regenerate' exclusion, then result-format details, then state caveats. Every clause carries information; it is only slightly heavy for a two-parameter read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be spelled out, and the description instead spends its space on the non-obvious parts: SHA256/size metadata, isError on failure states, and the queued-vs-complete distinction. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret it without further context.

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%, so the description carries the burden. Mentioning '当前/历史版本' implicitly maps to the optional `revision` parameter (null = current, set = historical), which adds some value, but `design_id` format and the exact meaning of a null vs. omitted revision are left to the JSON pattern/default alone.

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 names a specific verb ('只读查询') and enumerates exactly what is retrievable: current/historical revisions, pending supplementary info, unsubmitted images, and task/image absolute paths. The clause '不重新出图' cleanly separates it from the generation siblings, though it does not explicitly name get_image_tasks or inspect_design_images as the alternatives.

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 establishes a clear read-only context and warns that queued/running or missing tasks does not mean the design is finished, which shapes how an agent interprets results. However, routing to alternatives is only indirect ('继续等待/取消用返回的原队列三元组'), leaving the agent to infer that wait_image_tasks/cancel_image_tasks are the follow-ups if it wasn't already familiar with the sibling names.

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