choerodon_search_tasks_by_person

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 reveals the internal two-step process (lookup members then filter tasks), which is helpful. However, it does not mention other important behaviors such as authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if the member is not found.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and workflow. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding. It omits parameter semantics, usage boundaries, and behavioral details beyond the two-step process. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description implies that the 'name' parameter is the person's name, but it does not explain 'size' (default 50) or 'project_id' (default ''). Parameters are only partially covered, leaving significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 'search' and the resource 'tasks by person name', with additional explanation of the two-step process (first look up members, then filter). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like choerodon_query_issue or choerodon_search_users, which have different scopes.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., choerodon_query_issue, choerodon_list_issue). It implies the use case (search tasks by person name) but does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios.

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