Download generated case review notes as Word (docx) or case directory as Excel (xlsx). If the file is not yet generated, it renders it from the current workspace as a fallback.
下载已生成的阅卷笔录(docx)或阅卷目录(xlsx)；若文件未生成则按当前工作区即时渲染兜底. fmt: 'docx' | 'xlsx'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fmt | No | docx | |
| case_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the fallback rendering behavior when the file is not yet generated and lists the supported formats. However, it does not reveal side effects, permissions, or whether the fallback rendering may be expensive or trigger writes.
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?
Two terse, purposeful sentences. The main purpose and the fallback trait are front-loaded, followed immediately by the format specification. No wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity, the core purpose and formats are covered. Yet there is no explanation of the return payload, the meaning of case_id, or relationship to the generation workflow, so the definition is workable but 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description documents the fmt parameter with its two allowed values, but says nothing about case_id, which is the only required parameter. This leaves a key argument semantically underdefined.
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?
Diplies a clear action — download generated outputs — and specifies the two formats (docx/xlsx) plus a fallback rendering behavior. It clearly distinguishes the resource from siblings like write_outputs, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as write_outputs or get_workspace_summary. The use case is implied by the verb 'download' but alternatives and exclusion conditions are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.