getBugComments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that data comes from a specific API endpoint (bug-view actions), includes all comments, and automatically maps usernames to Chinese real names. However, it does not mention potential side effects (likely none), rate limits, or whether the tool requires authentication or specific permissions, which are common for ZenTao tools. The description is moderately transparent but incomplete for a read tool.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first explains the primary purpose and data source, the second adds a key behavior (username mapping). It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and data source but misses details like the structure of the output (no output schema means the description should hint at return format), potential pagination, or error cases. For a read tool with simple parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema already documents each parameter well (bugId, format, includeAll). The description adds context about the actions field and username mapping, but does not add much beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'markdown' format looks like beyond 'readable text', but the schema provides enough for basic understanding.

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 the tool retrieves comments and operation history for a specific bug, including who said what and when, with data sourced from ZenTao's bug-view actions field. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like getBugDetail (which likely gets the bug itself) and getTaskComments (which targets tasks).

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 implies usage for fetching bug comments, and the sibling context suggests it is the bug-specific counterpart to getTaskComments. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over getBugDetail or other bug-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The clarity is high but lacks explicit guidance.

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