list_bugs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool queries a bug list. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, error handling, or whether results are limited or ordered. For a read operation, this is insufficient to set agent expectations.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and resource. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. While it could include more information without becoming verbose, it avoids any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of bug objects, paginated results, empty array). It does not. The description also lacks contextual details like sorting order or default pagination values. For a simple list tool with three parameters, the description is incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (pno, page, limit), each with a clear label in Chinese. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 verb '查詢' (query) and the resource '缺陷清單' (defect list) scoped to a specific project. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_bug or update_bug by focusing on listing, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_requirements or list_todos. The purpose is clear and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_bug for new bugs or search tools). There is no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or contextual usage advice. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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