List PingCode Work Item Relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists relations and returns fields, but omits whether it is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no relations exist. This leaves significant gaps for a safe operation.

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 sentence that clearly conveys the core action, optional filter, and return information without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

With 6 parameters, no required fields, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose but lacks completeness. It does not explain the priority between identifier and workItemId, nor what relationType values are available. Adequate but with noticeable gaps.

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 100% and all parameters have descriptions in Chinese. The description adds minimal extra meaning by summarizing the overall function and return, but does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., priority between identifier and workItemId) or valid values for relationType. 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?

The description explicitly states the action (list), resource (work item relations), scope (all relations with optional filter by relationType), and return value (id and target work item). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pingcode_link_work_items and pingcode_unlink_work_items.

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 mentions filtering by relationType but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer listing over linking/unlinking, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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