Record case review conclusions—core facts, evidence chains, contradictions, and doubts—to support later defense arguments.
登记阅卷结论：核心事实、证据链条、矛盾点、待核查疑点。供后续辩护意见参考。
参数结构（args 字段）: {core_facts(必填); evidence_chain(必填); contradictions(必填); doubts(必填)}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | ||
| case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
注释中没有任何行为提示，描述本身只列出了要登记的内容字段，未说明该操作是新增、覆盖还是更新，也未说明是否依赖 case_id、是否校验数据或产生副作用。对于无注释的写入类工具，行为透明度明显不足。
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?
描述仅用两句话完成：第一句说明用途和内容，第二句说明参数结构，没有任何冗余信息，信息密度高且结构清晰。
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?
工具位于包含多个 record_* 工具的大兄弟集合中，且无注释辅助；描述未说明 case_id 的必填性、调用时机、写入行为或与现有案件的关联方式。对于这类有多个相似工具的记录类操作，描述不够完整。
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 描述覆盖率为 0%，描述虽然补充了 args 字段结构及必填标记，但忽略了 schema 中必填的 case_id，并且描述声称 args 内字段“必填”而 schema 将 args 本身设为可选，造成理解上的不一致。参数语义部分补偿不足且存在误导风险。
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?
描述以明确的动词“登记”和对象“阅卷结论”开头，并列出核心事实、证据链条、矛盾点、待核查疑点四项具体内容，使工具用途清晰可辨。虽然没有明确与同组 record_* 工具作区分，但内容本身足以让代理识别其用途。
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?
“供后续辩护意见参考”暗示了该工具用于阅卷后整理结论，但并未说明何时应使用它而不是其他 record_* 工具，也没有给出替代工具或排除条件。使用场景属于隐含而非明确说明。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.