批量获取 TAPD bug 详情

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned content (descriptions, steps, comments, attachments, images, videos) and that status includes workflow display name. No side effects or permissions mentioned, but readOnly is covered.

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?

Two sentences: first states core action, second adds a specific output detail. No redundant words, front-loaded, efficient.

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?

For a get-tool with 2 simple params and no output schema, the description adequately lists the types of content returned (descriptions, steps, comments, attachments, etc.) and a notable formatting detail. Covers necessary information.

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 100%, with descriptions for both bug_ids and workspace_id. The description adds minimal parameter info beyond the schema; the main added value is about output (status format). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: batch get TAPD bug details, listing specific content types (description, steps, comments, attachments, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like tapd_list_bugs (likely summary) and tapd_list_bug_changes (history).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The workspace_id parameter description hints at using other tools to find workspace IDs, but no differentiation from sibling tools like tapd_list_bugs for listing vs. detailed get.

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