Zentao MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns information including image URLs but not image content, and it requires image content analysis to be handled by another tool. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are common gaps for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying limitation and explicit alternative usage. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral traits. However, it could benefit from mentioning the return structure (e.g., what fields are included beyond image URLs) to fully compensate for the lack of output schema, though the sibling tool reference mitigates this 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'marketBugId' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides about the parameter, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get market bug details by ID with image extraction'), identifies the resource ('market bug'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it returns image URLs but not content, unlike rdms_download_image which handles content analysis. This precise verb+resource+scope combination effectively differentiates it from alternatives.

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 provides when to use this tool ('Get market bug details by ID with image extraction') and when not to use it ('If you need to analyze image content, use the rdms_download_image tool with the returned image URLs'), naming the alternative tool directly. This offers clear guidance on tool selection based on the need for image content analysis.

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