搜索 TAPD 项目成员

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

The description confirms the read-only nature already indicated by readOnlyHint annotation. It adds context about the purpose of searching to retrieve nick, but does not disclose other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a usage directive. Every sentence is necessary and impactful.

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 simplicity, the description covers its primary function and usage context. It does not detail output format, but that is acceptable as output schema is absent. The description is fairly complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

While schema descriptions cover all parameters, the tool description adds value by explaining the keyword parameter's matching behavior (name, nick, email) and the purpose of using the tool (to get nick for updates). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 searches project members by name, TAPD nick, or email, and provides a specific use case of confirming a handler's nick before updating a bug. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tapd_list_bugs or tapd_create_bug.

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 when to use the tool: before updating a bug handler to confirm the target's nick. It implies usage within a workspace but does not explicitly list scenarios where it should not be used. Overall, it provides clear guidance.

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