Retrieve complete Zentao bug details by ID, including embedded screenshots returned as images.
只读读取指定禅道 Bug 的完整详情，并默认下载描述中的内嵌截图作为 MCP 图片内容返回。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bug ID | |
| maxImages | No | 最多返回的截图数量 | |
| includeImages | No | 是否下载并返回 Bug 描述中的截图 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature and the default behavior of downloading and returning embedded screenshots as MCP image content. This goes beyond mere 'get bug' and covers key behavioral traits, though it does not address error scenarios or response structure beyond images.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then specifies the default behavior. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool with three parameters (one required), a clear read-only purpose, and no output schema, the description covers the essential details. It does not explain return format for non-image data, but that is not mandated given the absence of an output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the default image-download behavior, which aligns with includeImages, but does not clarify parameter formats or provide additional context. The description's mention of returning images as MCP content is the only extra semantic insight.
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 action: read-only retrieval of a specific ZenTao bug's full details. It identifies the resource (bug) and the operation (get by ID), and the mention of default screenshot downloading adds specificity that distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools. The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.
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 implies usage for fetching a single bug's details as opposed to listing or searching bugs, which is clear from the wording. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though sibling names provide that context. It offers clear context without explicit exclusions, warranting a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.