search_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches work items but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), error handling, or performance considerations like rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, '搜索 PingCode 工作项', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity of a search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'work item' entails, how search results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., search scope, result formats). The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'query' (search keyword) and 'project_id' (optional project limitation). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of query syntax or how project_id affects results. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter 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 '搜索 PingCode 工作项' (Search PingCode work items) states the basic action and resource but is vague about scope and functionality. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item' (which retrieves a specific item) or 'list_projects' (which lists projects rather than searching work items). The description lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'work item' or how the search operates.

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 when to prefer 'search_work_items' over 'get_work_item' (for specific items) or 'list_projects' (for project-level information), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context for search operations. Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit instructions.

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