Creates a new matter when a user explicitly raises a distinct item, so separate topics are recorded without merging unrelated matters.
用户明确提出一个新事项时创建。不要替用户猜测合并两个事项。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| aliases | No | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what is created, whether duplicate names are rejected or matched to an existing matter, whether the call is idempotent, or what identity is returned.
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 with the positive trigger front-loaded and the negative constraint second; nothing is padded. The brevity is genuine conciseness, though it comes at the cost of coverage elsewhere.
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 create/mutation tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the field set and duplicate-handling behavior. Given the sibling set includes relate_matters, link_context, and list_matters, an agent also needs to know this tool creates the container rather than attaching content — it must infer that.
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 schema has 0% description coverage across four parameters (name, aliases, keywords, description), and the description mentions none of them — not even the required 'name'. It therefore contributes no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving aliases/keywords semantics (e.g., are they search keys?) entirely undefined.
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 says to create something when the user explicitly proposes a new matter, which combined with the tool name makes the verb+resource unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from merging/linking siblings (relate_matters) by warning against combining matters, but never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
It gives a clear trigger condition — only when the user explicitly raises a new matter — plus an exclusion: don't guess on the user's behalf and merge two matters. What's missing is routing to the actual alternative for merging/linking (relate_matters, link_context).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.