zentao_search_bugs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the operation is read-only, scope defaults to assigned-to-me, and 'all' means all visible bugs. This is meaningful context, though it does not describe output shape or pagination 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the read-only nature and then state the default scope and the explicit 'all' trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 four documented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential invocation context: keyword search, read-only behavior, and scope rules. It is sufficient for correct selection and invocation, though a note on return format would make it fully complete.

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 value beyond the schema by clarifying when to set scope to 'all' versus the default, and by tying the keyword parameter to title search semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: read-only search of Zen Tao bugs by title keyword. The keyword-based search scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like zentao_get_bug, zentao_list_bugs, and zentao_resolve_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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: default searches only bugs assigned to the current MCP account, and 'all' scope only when the user explicitly says all bugs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so slightly below the top score.

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