report_dispatch【需要登录】把用户确认的现状/目标交给独行录排安排：首次建路径，后续追加汇报并重排未接受部分。会调用平台 LLM、写入记录，可能后台排人和发通知，需灰度已开启。按用户限流，提示汇报过于频繁时不要立即重试。结果不明或超时后先查询现值，不要自动重发；服务没有持久请求去重键。 用 get_my_dispatch 的 reports 核对是否已收到，FILLING 时等候后查询。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite minimal annotations (only destructiveHint=false), the description discloses substantial behavior: it calls the platform LLM, writes records, may arrange people and send notifications in the background, is per-user rate limited, and has no persistent request dedup key. It even covers timeout/unknown-result handling — far beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Dense and front-loaded with the login/gray-release prerequisite and the core verb, and every clause (LLM call, notifications, rate limit, no dedup key, verification path) carries operational value. It's a long run-on string, so structure could be tighter, but little is wasted.
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?
No output schema and a single parameter, yet the description fully covers prerequisites, side effects, failure/timeout handling, idempotency caveats, and how to verify results via get_my_dispatch. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.
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?
Only one parameter (text) with 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry meaning. It implies text is the user-confirmed current situation/goal that gets handed off, which orients an agent on what to pass, though it never explicitly names the field or its length/content constraints.
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?
States a specific action (hand user-confirmed situation/goal to the dispatch operator to arrange) plus the resource and even differentiates first-call behavior (creates path) from subsequent calls (appends and re-arranges the unaccepted part). An agent can distinguish this from get_my_dispatch or accept_dispatch_arrangement immediately.
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?
Gives explicit preconditions (must be logged in, gray release enabled), rate-limit behavior (don't retry when told reports are too frequent), and a concrete recovery protocol (query current value on timeout, don't auto-resend because there's no dedup key). It also names get_my_dispatch as the verification path. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension rewards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.