ZenTao MCP Server

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 mentions the default scope ('assigned') and includes examples of user queries, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response looks like (e.g., format, error handling). For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence, provides usage guidelines in the second, and includes specific query examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks behavioral details like response format, error cases, or performance considerations. With no output schema, it should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving some context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it implies the 'scope' parameter with 'Default scope is assigned' but doesn't explain other parameters like 'account' or 'status'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'List my bugs (我的Bug) by assignment or creator.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('my bugs'), and scope ('by assignment or creator'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on personal bug lists rather than general bug listing or product listing.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Default scope is assigned. Use when user asks for 'my bugs', '我的bug', '分配给我', or personal bug list.' It specifies when to use the tool (personal bug queries) and implies alternatives (e.g., zentao_bugs_list for non-personal lists), though it doesn't name siblings directly.

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