Get PingCode Project Schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool gets configurations but does not indicate whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Important behavior like potential data fetching latency or lack of modifications is not mentioned.

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, making it concise. However, it lacks front-loading of key information; for instance, the purpose is clear but parameter details are missing. Every sentence earns its place, but additional structured information would improve it without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more details about usage context, expected output, and parameter behavior. The current description is too minimal to guide an AI agent effectively in selecting and invoking this tool over its many siblings.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (kind, typeId, projectId, projectIdentifier) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, their roles, or how they relate to the configuration retrieval. This is a critical gap for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the tool retrieves project configurations (project, work item type, status, priority, members) for confirming Bug/requirement mapping. The verb '获取' (get) and resource 'project schema' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pingcode_list_bugs or pingcode_get_work_item.

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 phrase '用于确认 Bug/需求映射' indicates the tool is used to confirm mappings, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before creating or updating work items), and does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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