anon_get_dashboard_my_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the result set composition (assigned unfinished todos + unconfirmed onsite tasks) and the exact sort order (overdue first, then ascending dueAt, undated last). It stops short of describing the response shape, but ordering semantics is meaningful added context.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then constraints, then the endpoint path. The added 'no need to pass projectId' line is slightly redundant with the empty schema but earns its place by explaining scoping. Generally tight with no filler.

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 read-only, zero-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers content, ordering, and auth prerequisites adequately. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with the other dashboard/todos endpoints, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description further clarifies that no projectId is needed because the project is derived from the current API key, which is exactly the kind of implicit-scoping detail that matters for a parameterless endpoint.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('获取本人待行动项' – get my pending action items) and enumerates exactly what it returns: incomplete todos assigned to me plus unconfirmed onsite tasks. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like anon_get_dashboard or anon_get_dashboard_summary, so an agent must still infer which dashboard endpoint to pick.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('需项目成员身份' – requires project membership), which is useful context. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over anon_get_dashboard, anon_get_dashboard_summary, or anon_get_todos, so usage is only implied.

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