Generate a markdown summary from a stage in a research run, turning collected evidence into a readable report for review.
Generate a markdown summary from a stage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| language | No | zh | |
| config_path | No | ||
| source_stage | No | ||
| periscope_path | No | ||
| save_to_periscope_data | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 is silent on whether the operation writes anything (the save_to_periscope_data flag implies a possible side effect), what permissions are needed, or whether an existing summary is overwritten — all material for a generation 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 single sentence is not padded, but one terse line is under-specification rather than conciseness for a six-parameter tool with side-effect flags. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially only one clause.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the description leaves the rich parameter set, side-effect semantics, and relationship to sibling summary/run tools entirely unaddressed. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters, and the description explains none of them. Critical fields like source_stage, config_path, periscope_path, and the language default ('zh') are completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 verb ('Generate') and output artifact ('markdown summary') are stated, giving a rough sense of the operation. However, 'from a stage' is ambiguous and the definition does not distinguish this from the sibling ps_get_run_summary, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., ps_get_run_summary). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and the stage parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.