record_procedural_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains what data to include but not how the tool behaves on invocation, such as whether it appends, overwites, validates, or has side effects. As a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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 organized into purpose and parameter structure, with no wasteful filler. The long enumerations are justified because the schema does not document the nested args. It could be tighter, but it is dense and scannable.

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?

For a tool with an opaque args schema, the description gives enough information to construct a correct call: case_id comes from the schema, args structure comes from the description, and an output schema is present. It lacks some workflow/order context, but the essential invocation details are covered.

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 leaves args as an opaque free-form object with no property documentation. The description fully compensates by enumerating every expected field, marking required ones, listing doc_type options, and explaining the semantic content of the args object.

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 verb '登记' and the resource '程序性文书', with a defined scope ('从被调查至当前'). It is specific enough to distinguish it from evidentiary or indictment tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling for contrast.

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 scope statement implies this tool is for registering procedural documents across the case timeline, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use instructions. With many record_* siblings available, explicit alternative routing would be valuable.

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