List PingCode Requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action and default project, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or limitations.

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 extremely concise with one sentence. Every word adds value by specifying the action and default project. However, it could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain returned data format, filter usage, or pagination. An AI agent would lack critical context for correct invocation.

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 high (78%), and the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the default project context. It neither contradicts nor enriches the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 PingCode requirements with a default project. It distinguishes from siblings like pingcode_list_bugs by specifying 'requirements' and from pingcode_list_my_requirements by implying a project-wide scope. However, it does not elaborate on the exact resource scope (e.g., all projects or just PROJ).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like pingcode_list_my_requirements or pingcode_search_work_items. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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