choerodon_query_issue

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

Without annotations, the description implies a read-only operation (querying details) and lists returned fields (summary/status/优先级/类型/创建人/描述/附件). However, it does not disclose if the operation has side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits.

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 (3 lines), front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value: first line states the action, second explains parameters, third lists return fields.

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?

With no output schema provided, the description lists key return fields and attachments, which is sufficient for an agent to assess result usage. It covers the core behavior despite missing edge cases like empty results or error handling.

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%, so the description bears full burden. It clarifies that issue_id is an 'encrypted ID from list results' and project_id defaults to CHOERODON_PROJECT_ID, adding essential context not in the 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 clearly states the action ('查询...单个任务/缺陷详情') and resource ('含附件列表'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'choerodon_list_issue' which lists issues, while this retrieves a single item with attachments.

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?

It specifies that issue_id is a required encrypted ID from a list and project_id is optional with a default. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool vs alternatives like 'choerodon_list_attachments' for attachments alone.

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