list_affiliate_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP GET API endpoint, the return structure (dict with total_found, returned, items[]), and key fields in each item. This indicates a read-only operation and sets expectations for the response. It doesn't mention rate limits or side effects, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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 well-structured with clear section headers (【用途】【呼叫的 Shopline API】【回傳結構】). It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the API call, response structure, item fields, and next-step usage. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination behavior beyond the max_results parameter, but the 'total_found' and 'returned' fields imply pagination without full explanation.

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% because max_results has a clear Chinese description ('最多回傳筆數'). The tool description itself doesn't add extra meaning to this parameter, but the schema already covers it. The return structure description indirectly clarifies how max_results relates to 'returned', but this is not explicit.

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 opens with '取得聯盟行銷活動列表' (Get list of affiliate campaigns), clearly stating the verb+resource. It specifies the purpose: browse all affiliate campaigns, and differentiates from siblings by mentioning that after obtaining campaign_id, one can call get_affiliate_campaign_detail or get_affiliate_campaign_usage.

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 provides clear context: use to browse all affiliate campaigns and then proceed to detail or usage endpoints. It names specific sibling tools and explains when to use them (after getting campaign_id). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is strong enough.

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