get_bounty_applications

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 discloses that the tool returns all human applications with applicant info and status, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation (though '查看' implies this), nor does it mention potential limitations like pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and output contents. It is front-loaded in Chinese, which is the language of the description, and contains no irrelevant information or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (applicant info, status). The absence of an output schema means the description partially explains the return content. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or error behavior, which could be relevant for an agent. This is a minor gap, so 4 is appropriate.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'bounty_id' with '任务 ID（如 TASK_029 或 UUID）'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description just refers to '某个赏金任务' (a certain bounty task), which mirrors the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: '查看某个赏金任务的所有人类申请' (view all human applications for a specific bounty task). It uses a specific verb (查看/view) and specifies the resource (bounty applications) and scope (all applications for a bounty). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_bounty' (which fetches the bounty itself) and 'accept_bounty_application' (which accepts an application).

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 context: it is for viewing applications for a bounty, not for other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The name itself provides enough context for an agent to infer when to use it, but explicit guidance is absent.

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