查询 TAPD 需求变更历史

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

The description's '查询' aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It adds a behavioral detail by mentioning that include_details=true maps to TAPD's need_parse_changes=1. No contradictions or hidden side effects are mentioned, but it could disclose more about response 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding key usage constraints. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the conditional requirement and filtering well. It hints at include_details behavior. However, it lacks description of the output structure (e.g., field_changes format) and pagination details beyond page/limit, which are more important for a list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the three mutually exclusive parameters and explaining the filtering options (e.g., by change type, field, creator). It also provides an example for 'order'. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 queries TAPD story change history and field-level details. The verb '查询' and resource '需求变更历史' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like tapd_list_bugs or tapd_list_bug_changes by being story-specific.

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 explicitly states the mandatory condition (at least one of story_id, created, or id) and lists filtering options. However, it does not explicitly tell when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like tapd_list_bug_changes, which would improve guidance.

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