Search archived policy documents using filters for organization, year, sector, and keyword. Find relevant regulatory files for informed decision-making.
搜索已入库的政策文件
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sector | No | ||
| keyword | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. '搜索' implies a read-only operation and '已入库' indicates the data source, but the description does not explain matching behavior, result ordering, limit handling, or whether all filters are optional.
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 concise and front-loaded with the key action and target. However, it is under-specified for a tool with five optional parameters and many related siblings, making it more a case of brevity than well-balanced structure.
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 not detailing return values is acceptable. But with no annotations, no usage guidance, no parameter semantics, and a crowded set of policy-related siblings, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool correctly.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of how keyword, org, year, sector, or limit interact. Although the parameter names are fairly intuitive, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's default values and types, and it does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('搜索', search) and a defined resource ('已入库的政策文件', stored policy documents), making the core operation clear. It distinguishes the tool's scope from collection-oriented siblings like policy_collect, but it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools such as policy_detail or policy_timeline.
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 policy_search versus sibling tools like policy_detail, policy_stats, policy_timeline, or the generic search tool. The description simply states what the tool does without any contextual or alternative-based direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.