zentao_list_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only reads', disclosing the non-mutating nature of the operation. It also scopes the data to 'products visible to the current account', which is useful context. No further behavioral details are necessary for a simple list operation.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the read-only nature and immediately states the purpose, with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless, simple list tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what it returns (the product list) and why it's needed (to obtain productId for bug queries). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any parameter semantics. Per the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the schema covers nothing and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 reads'), the resource ('product list'), and the purpose ('to obtain productId for bug queries'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on bugs, since this is the only product-listing tool.

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 when to use this tool: whenever you need a productId to query product bugs. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are all bug-related, making the use case unambiguous. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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