zentao_get_bug

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 only states 'get details' with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or output structure. The description is too sparse to inform about behavioral traits.

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 a single, short sentence in Chinese. It is extremely concise with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but does not describe the return format or any error conditions. For a get-by-ID tool, it could be more complete by specifying what fields are returned.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'id' with a description 'Bug ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3.

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 '获取禅道 Bug 详情' clearly states the action (get) and resource (bug details). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like zentao_list_bugs (list) and zentao_create_bug (create). However, it could be more specific about what 'details' encompasses.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't indicate that this tool is for retrieving a specific bug by ID, while zentao_list_bugs is for browsing. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given.

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