list_gifts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conditional API calls (GET /v1/gifts vs GET /v1/gifts/search), the overall return structure (dict with total_found, returned, items[]), and the fields per item. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly state it is read-only.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for usage, API endpoints, and return structure. Each section contributes useful information without fluff or repetition, keeping the entire description compact.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure including fields like id, name, sku, quantity, status, and created_at, which is helpful. However, it mentions '適用條件' (applicable conditions) in the purpose but does not list such a field in the return structure, leaving a slight ambiguity. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the search keyword's role (gift name) but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The return structure mention is not directly about parameters, so it doesn't elevate the score.

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 clearly states '取得贈品列表' (get gift list) and explains it is for browsing or searching all gift settings, covering name, stock, and applicable conditions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_gift/update_gift by focusing on listing and provides two endpoints based on search condition.

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 explicitly specifies when to use each endpoint: if a search keyword is provided, the search endpoint is called; otherwise, the list endpoint. It states the purpose (browse/search) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., create/update), though the context makes this fairly obvious.

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