List PingCode Bugs

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It adds the default project context but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or that filtering parameters (like stateNames, assigneeNames) are available. Behavior is partially transparent.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, but could include a bit more detail (e.g., pagination) 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?

Despite high schema coverage, the description lacks essential behavioral context for a list tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain return format, pagination (pageSize/pageIndex), or how filters interact. Incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 high (78%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to any parameter beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default project mention is not a parameter). No added value.

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 fetches a list of bugs with a default project 'PROJ', distinguishing it from sibling tools like pingcode_list_my_bugs (my bugs) and pingcode_list_requirements (requirements). The verb '拉取' and resource '缺陷列表' are 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?

Only mentions default project 'PROJ', implying usage for that project but no explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings like pingcode_list_my_bugs or pingcode_search_work_items. No when-not-to-use or alternatives provided.

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