getProducts

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict (it implies a read operation). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, it meets the baseline but lacks extra value.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it 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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and annotations indicating safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't address sibling differentiation or usage context, leaving gaps 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but this is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score above minimum.

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 '获取禅道产品列表' (Get ZenTao product list) clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('product list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getBugDetail' or 'getMyBugs' beyond the resource type, and the title is null which slightly reduces clarity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing initialization via 'initZentao'), specific contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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