add_charged_fact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. '登记' conveys that this is a write/add operation and the parameter list conveys input expectations. However, it does not disclose side effects, validation, idempotency, prerequisites such as an existing case, or update/replace semantics, so behavior remains partly implied.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the inline args documentation is compact. It is dense but not bloated; a clearer visual separation between the purpose and the parameter spec would polish it, but no words are 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?

For a data-entry tool with a generic args schema, the description provides enough detail to construct a valid call: it names all required fields and their meanings. It omits explicit guidance on how args relates to case_id and any validation expectations, so it is not fully complete.

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 schema coverage for args is effectively 0%, so the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It compensates by enumerating index, description, volume, page_start, page_end, amount, and time_period with requiredness and brief semantics. A few fields like amount and time_period are left to inference, and the formal schema still treats args as an arbitrary object, so it is not a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 登记起诉书指控的单笔事实 (record a single fact charged in the indictment). It also adds the organizational context 第三/四部分的整理依据, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like record_indictment or add_transaction.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this tool is for entering individual charged facts as the basis for Parts 3/4, and it lists the expected source fields. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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