choerodon_get_status_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It informs that the map is from 'status name -> encrypted id', which adds some value, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description does not explain the return format beyond the mapping.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose and the mapping direction. It fronts the key information without extraneous details, earning its place efficiently.

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 has one parameter with a default, an output schema, and no nested objects, complexity is low. The description adequately specifies the mapping direction and use case, but lacks details on authentication requirements, error cases, or how the output schema extends the description. It is minimally complete for the complexity level.

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 schema has only one parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage but a default value. The description states it is 'for a specific project' but does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, format, or how to obtain a valid project_id. Given the low parameter count and the marginal clarification, a baseline score 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 retrieves a status map for a specific project, mapping status names to encrypted IDs. The purpose is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'choerodon_query_issue' which query issues, not status maps.

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 the tool is 'for list filtering', which implies when to use it, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not explain prerequisites for the project_id parameter or when this tool is preferred over other sibling tools.

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