record_indictment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavioral rule that full_text_summary must copy the alleged facts verbatim and hints at a multi-part workflow. However, it does not explain whether the tool creates, appends, or overwrites records, or whether an existing case context is required, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loads the purpose and the key full_text_summary instruction, followed by an organized parameter list. The parameter list is long but necessary given the empty schema; there is no filler or redundancy that could be removed without losing value.

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?

While the args fields are thoroughly documented, the description omits any mention of the top-level required case_id property shown in the schema. It also does not clarify what '第二部分' refers to or which sibling tool performs the first part. An agent following the description alone might not construct a valid invocation, making the description incomplete for reliable use.

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 input schema provides essentially no parameter descriptions (0% coverage; only a generic args object and a required case_id). The description's parameter structure block fully documents every args field with requiredness and semantic meaning (doc_type, volume, page ranges, defendant, charge, etc.), completely compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 uses a specific verb '登记' with a specific resource '起诉书/起诉意见书内容（第二部分）', and further clarifies a special requirement for full_text_summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_party, record_statement, and add_charged_fact, which target different entity types.

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 clearly identifies the scenario: registering indictment/prosecution opinion content, specifically the second part. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the resource specificity and the '第二部分' marker provide sufficient context for when this tool should be used.

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