list_effort_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the tool gets actual effort details. It does not mention any filtering behavior (e.g., by work item id), permissions, pagination, or return format, leaving significant behavioral ambiguities for a list 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 a single, short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any additional context or structure that would help the agent, so it feels more like an incomplete stub than a well-crafted concise description.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal and provides no context about return values, filtering semantics, or when to choose this over sibling effort tools. Given that sibling tools exist with overlapping domains, this description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions ('工作项唯一标识' and 'organizationId'). The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does provide the domain context that these parameters relate to actual effort records, which justifies the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: '获取实际工时明细' ('get actual effort details'), making the core function clear. It identifies the resource as actual work-hour records, which implicitly distinguishes it from estimated efforts, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like list_current_user_effort_records.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_estimated_efforts or list_current_user_effort_records. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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