Retrieve estimated effort details for a work item by providing its ID and organization ID, enabling clear visibility into planned hours for project management.
[Project Management] 获取预计工时明细
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 工作项唯一标识 | |
| organizationId | Yes | organizationId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.60Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states that it retrieves details, without mentioning safety, side effects, pagination, or return format. For a list operation, it does not even clarify that it returns multiple items. This is a minimal disclosure falling short of the burden.
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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately brief, but could include more substance without becoming verbose. Efficiency is good, though it sacrifices informative content.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is overly terse. It does not explain what is returned, whether it is a list, how parameters relate, or any constraints. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret results.
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% with both parameters having descriptions, though 'organizationId' is just a name repeat. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does nothing to enhance parameter understanding.
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 '获取预计工时明细' (get estimated effort details) clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and resource (estimated efforts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_estimated_effort and update_estimated_effort, and from list_effort_records which targets actual effort records. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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. It does not mention that this tool is for estimated efforts specifically or contrast it with list_effort_records. The description offers no context on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.