Search PingCode Work Items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that results are deduped by ID and include per-type counts. But it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or performance implications, nor does it mention that it is read-only (though it's a search). With zero annotation support, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 dense Chinese sentence that front-loads the purpose. It covers many parameters concisely, though it could be broken into multiple sentences for readability. It is not verbose, but structure could be improved.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return format more fully. It mentions 'merged results deduped by ID and totals per type' but lacks details like sorting, order, or field structure. For a search tool with 31 parameters, this is adequate but not complete.

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 94% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that raw filters accept lists up to 20, that some filters merge with name-based ones, and the timestamp format. It also clarifies defaults (e.g., kinds default). This exceeds the schema alone.

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 this tool performs a unified search across defects and requirements ('跨缺陷与需求统一搜索'). It lists supported filters and explains the merged result with dedup and per-type totals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pingcode_list_bugs and pingcode_list_requirements which are type-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?

The description implies usage when a cross-type search is needed ('跨缺陷与需求统一搜索') and when raw filters are required. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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