choerodon_list_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that keyword does fuzzy search on summary, and that assignee/status auto-resolve. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens with empty filters (returns all?), pagination behavior, or performance constraints. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters clearly) and fully cover all 5 parameters.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown in detail), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, so the description's partial coverage of 3/5 parameters leaves gaps (project_id and size unmentioned). For a list tool, pagination and scope are important – not explained. 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 coverage is 0% (all parameters have no descriptions in JSON Schema), so the description must compensate. It explains keyword (fuzzy on summary), assignee (name auto-resolves to member), and status (name auto-resolves to id). size and project_id are not explained – they have default values but project_id is critical context. Still, the description adds significant meaning beyond skeleton schema.

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 states '条件查询猪齿鱼任务列表' (query Choerodon task list with conditions), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'choerodon_query_issue' (likely single issue) and 'choerodon_search_tasks_by_person' (by person) by being a list with multiple filters.

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 explains what each parameter does and notes that assignee and status are auto-resolved, which helps usage. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools like choerodon_search_tasks_by_person or choerodon_query_issue, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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