zentao_list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions listing tasks and a required parameter, lacking details on pagination (though 'limit' exists), result format, permissions, or mutation safety. This is inadequate for an agent to understand full behavior.

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 extremely concise—one short sentence that front-loads the primary action and a key constraint. No wasted words, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters (including pagination and filters) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent lacks guidance on how to construct a valid request (e.g., expected return format, default limit behavior) beyond the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the single requirement '必须传 execution' is already in the schema's 'required' field. No extra context for 'status', 'assignedTo', or 'limit' is provided.

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 lists tasks ('列出禅道任务'), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'zentao_get_task' (single task retrieval) or 'zentao_list_project_testtasks' (test tasks), missing an opportunity for distinction.

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 like 'zentao_get_task' or 'zentao_list_bugs'. It only states a requirement ('必须传 execution'), without explaining scenarios or when not to use it.

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