Fetch registered text documents from the CUMCM RAG manifest, rejecting unregistered paths for audited access.
读取 manifest 已登记的文本型公开语料，拒绝未登记路径。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_chars | No | ||
| source_file | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key constraint of rejecting unregistered paths, which is useful. However, it does not mention any other behaviors such as output format, error handling, or side effects.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and includes the critical constraint, making it concise and well-structured for the information it conveys.
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 absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how to use the parameters or when to choose this tool over siblings, leaving the agent without essential context for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does not explain what source_file represents or what max_chars does, leaving both parameters entirely undocumented.
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 reads text-type public corpus registered in the manifest, with an explicit constraint that unregistered paths are rejected. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like rag_search or rag_list_sources.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the user should have a specific source_file path, but does not mention alternatives or conditions for using rag_search or rag_get_case_context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.