Generate structured Word review notes and Excel indexes with case info and conclusions from local criminal case PDFs, returning file paths without uploading files.
生成阅卷笔录(Word)与阅卷目录(Excel)（含案件信息表与结论），返回文件路径。
参数结构（args 字段）: {fmt(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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool generates files and returns paths, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, storage side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is long-running or dependent on prior review steps. This is a significant gap for a write-type tool.
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 compact, front-loads the main behavior and output artifacts, and includes parameter structure in a concise way. It avoids filler, though the parameter note could be more accurate and better separated.
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 no annotations and a schema with essentially unconstrained args, the description leaves out critical context: case_id semantics, allowed fmt values, preconditions, postconditions, and the relationship to download_output. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description alone is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 description adds a fmt field inside args, but declares it required while the schema marks args as optional/default null. It also fails to explain case_id, even though case_id is the only schema-required parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it is partially misleading and incomplete.
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 a specific action and resource: it generates 阅卷笔录 (Word) and 阅卷目录 (Excel), including case information and conclusions, and returns file paths. This is action-oriented and informative. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like download_output, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether a case review must be completed first. An agent gets no contextual cues about the proper calling sequence or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.