create_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the discovery/registration behavior and return shape, but omits side effects (e.g., directory creation, persistence), prerequisites, idempotency, and what the optional hint/vision parameters do. It is more informative than a bare mutation note, but incomplete.

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 concise sentences with purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful workflow context without unnecessary detail. Every part 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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, the description leaves major gaps: optional parameter semantics and behavioral side effects are missing. It is sufficient for a default call with case_dir only, but not complete enough for reliable invocation in varied scenarios.

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. It only clarifies case_dir ('发现 case_dir 下卷宗 PDF'); the other four parameters (output_dir, charge_hint, defendant_hint, vision_available) are entirely unexplained.

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 specific action—'创建案件会话' (create case session)—and explains the core behavior: discover PDFs in case_dir, register page counts, and return a case_id with the volume list. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_cases and start_review.

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 clearly positions create_case as the entry point for a new case session and explicitly names follow-up options ('随后可 start_review ... 或直接调用读卷/登记工具'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for existing cases), so it stops short of a 5.

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