get_release_items

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 only states what the tool does ('获取...列表' - get list), implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient to inform the agent about expected behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., item IDs, summaries), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters (release_id, project_id, item_type). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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: '获取某个发布版本关联的缺陷和需求列表' (Get the list of defects and requirements associated with a release version). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('缺陷和需求列表' - defect and requirement list), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_work_items' or 'get_work_item', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_work_items' (which might search across releases) or 'get_work_item' (which gets a single item), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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