getMyBugs

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds context about filtering by status and product, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese: '按状态与产品筛选我的 bug 列表.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations only cover read-only status, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the filtering purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, or deeper usage context. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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 description mentions filtering by status and product, which aligns with the two parameters in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no descriptions. The description compensates by naming the parameters but doesn't add detailed semantics like format or constraints beyond what's implied. This meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete coverage.

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's purpose: '按状态与产品筛选我的 bug 列表' (Filter my bug list by status and product). It specifies the verb (filter), resource (my bug list), and filtering criteria (status and product). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'getBugDetail' or 'getProducts', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'getMyBugs' over 'getBugDetail' (for specific bug details) or 'getProducts' (for product listings), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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