query_my_defects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a query operation (read-only implied) but does not explicitly state read-only, side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior. The equivalence to query_defects gives some behavioral context, but without knowing query_defects' full behavior, transparency is partial. Since it's a query, it's likely safe, but the disclosure is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and including a useful equivalence note. There is no fluff or redundant content; every sentence 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 simple query with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and default user. However, it omits parameter semantics and explicit behavioral transparency, which are needed given there are no annotations. The equivalence reference partially compensates but is not fully self-contained.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (status, page_num, page_size). While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about how they affect the query or any constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 queries a list of defects assigned to a specific default user (郑自航/1001967). It also explicitly notes the equivalence to query_defects with a specific parameter, distinguishing it from the generic sibling tool. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that leaves no ambiguity.

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 a clear use case: querying the current user's defects. The equivalence statement to query_defects helps an agent understand this is a convenience wrapper. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the generic query_defects, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives beyond the equivalence.

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