Retrieve the public army roster linked to a Warhammer 40K report, including original text, Chinese translation, source, and unconfirmed status while leaving unknown point values unset.
读取该报告关联的一份公开军表；保留原文、中译、来源及未确认状态，不把未知点数补为0。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | ||
| report_id | Yes | ||
| release_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real behavioral content absent from the annotations: the returned data must preserve original text, Chinese translation, source, and unconfirmed status, and must not zero-fill unknown values — a fidelity guarantee an agent could not infer otherwise.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; each clause (source fidelity, translation, unconfirmed status, no zero-filling) carries distinct information. It is dense but not padded.
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 output schema, the description usefully sketches the shape of the returned roster (original text, translation, source, unconfirmed flags) and the null-vs-zero convention. However, it leaves the required case_id and the optional release_id unexplained, which is a material gap for a fetch keyed on three identifiers.
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 three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at report_id ('该报告关联的') and says nothing about case_id (a required 64-hex identifier) or the optional release_id / its null default, leaving the two most opaque required parameters entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (一份公开军表 – one public roster) and scopes it to the report in context, which distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_rosters and from get_report. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops 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?
Usage is only implied: '该报告关联的' signals that this is the report-scoped single-roster fetch versus the list-level tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and the role of the optional release_id in choosing which roster is never addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.