Reads a test case file by its test case ID, enabling retrieval of test input and expected output for validating C++ solutions in competitive programming workflows.
读取测试用例文件
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test_case_id | Yes | 测试用例ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about error behavior when the ID is not found, what the returned content looks like, or whether the read is side-effect free. 'Read' implies a safe operation, but that is left implicit.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is no structure beyond the bare purpose statement.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description, the definition leaves key information unstated for even a simple read tool — notably what is returned and how failures are signaled. Adequate only for trivial 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one required parameter (test_case_id), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format hints (e.g., ID syntax) beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('读取测试用例文件' — read a test case file), which is clearly distinct from siblings like compile_and_run, debug_with_gdb, and compare_outputs. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.