获取禅道 Bug 详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description's '只读，不修改任何数据' merely repeats this annotation and adds no new behavioral context such as error cases, rate limits, or permission requirements. The only additional detail, the include_steps flag, is already described in the parameter schema.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then providing a clear Args and Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the read-only note is a single short phrase. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with comprehensive annotations, the description provides the essential return format (compensating for the lack of an output schema) and documents the optional parameter. It omits error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a safe read operation. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters, and the description's Args section mirrors the schema exactly without adding new semantics. Per the baseline, when the schema fully documents parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate – the description adds no extra meaning beyond what's already structured.

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 '按 ID 获取单条禅道 Bug 的完整信息' – a specific verb (get) and resource (bug by ID) – and differentiates from siblings like zentao_list_bugs (list) and zentao_search_bugs (search) by focusing on a single bug retrieval. It also highlights the inclusion of reproduction steps, which is a distinct feature.

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 purpose implies usage when a single bug's full details are needed, and the read-only nature distinguishes it from write siblings (comment, resolve, close, etc.). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like list or search, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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