get_workspace_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb '查看' (view) clearly indicates a read-only operation, and it specifies the returned content: counts of registered records and basic case information. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a low-risk summary query this is reasonably transparent.

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 terse and front-loaded, but the second sentence contains misleading parameter information that does not earn its place. The content is not verbose, but the inaccurate structural note detracts from the usefulness.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description omits the required case_id parameter and provides no usage guidance relative to get_review_progress. An agent could still invoke the tool correctly by inspecting the schema, but the description alone is incomplete and partially misleading.

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 only parameter-related text, '参数结构（args 字段）: {}', is misleading or inaccurate because the input schema requires a top-level case_id string and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap and actually obscures the single required parameter.

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's verb and resource: it views progress for the current grading workspace, including registered record counts per section and basic case information. It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_review_progress, whose name suggests overlapping functionality.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_review_progress or get_case_status. There is no mention of preferred conditions, exclusions, or which sibling to choose instead.

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