Get My PingCode Work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It declares read-only ('只读'), aggregation, grouping by status, deduplication, and default assignee override. It does not detail pagination behavior or error conditions, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: main aggregation logic, filtering options, and read-only declaration. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains grouping, deduplication, filtering, and read-only nature. It lacks explicit mention of pagination (though pageSize parameter exists) and return format beyond 'groups with counts'. Still fairly complete given schema coverage.

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 88%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the role of assigneeName and filter parameters but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool aggregates bugs and requirements of the current assignee, groups by status with counts, and deduplicates. It specifies verb '聚合' (aggregate), resource '当前负责人的缺陷与需求' (bugs and requirements of current assignee), and filtering options, distinguishing from sibling tools like pingcode_list_my_bugs which likely provide raw listings.

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?

Description mentions filtering by assignee name, status, and update time, and that the tool is read-only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pingcode_list_my_bugs or pingcode_search_work_items, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The use case is implied but not contrasted.

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