Record basic case information, including case name, defendant, alleged charge, total amount, and volume count, to establish the context needed for criminal file review.
登记案件基本信息表：主体、涉嫌罪名、涉案金额、卷宗数量。
参数结构（args 字段）: {case_name(必填); defendant(必填); charge(必填); total_amount(必填); volume_count(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?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully convey behavioral expectations. '登记' implies a write operation, but the description does not disclose whether this creates or updates a record, whether existing values are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects occur.
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 short sentences: first gives purpose, second gives parameter structure. No fluff, and the parameter block is justified because the schema provides no field-level documentation.
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?
Though an output schema exists, the description lacks needed invocation context: it doesn't connect to create_case, doesn't explain whether args itself is optional, and doesn't say how this relates to the record_* sibling tools. An agent would be under-supported when deciding the correct sequence of calls.
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 exposes only case_id and an opaque args object, with 0% coverage of the args fields. The description usefully enumerates the five required args fields, which is essential for invocation. However, it provides no types or formats for total_amount or volume_count and omits role of case_id entirely.
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 says the tool registers the case basic information table and lists the key fields (case_name, defendant, charge, total_amount, volume_count). The '基本信息' wording helps distinguish it from more specialized record_* siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name any 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 is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like create_case, record_party, or record_indictment. It does not state prerequisites such as whether a case must already exist or whether this tool should be called before the more specific record tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.