list_estimated_efforts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the return format, permissions, or any side effects. The minimal language adds no behavioral insight beyond the name.

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, which is concise. However, it lacks structure such as front-loading key information or using separation. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses a point for not being optimally informative.

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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what is listed (e.g., estimated efforts for a work item) and possibly the output format. It does not, leaving significant gaps for a list operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (id and organizationId have descriptions). It does not explain their roles in context of estimated efforts.

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 it is about getting estimated effort details, matching the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_effort_records, which may also list effort-related data. The verb '获取' (get) is adequate but not highly specific.

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 over alternatives (e.g., list_effort_records, list_current_user_effort_records). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to guess.

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