Create actionable verification plans for open research questions by recording steps, expected results, and linked claims; this tool registers plans only and does not run tests.
为待确认问题创建可执行的验证项，包含步骤、预期结果和关联判断；此工具只登记计划，不执行目标。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes | ||
| expected | Yes | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| study_id | Yes | 研究 ID，由 research_create 返回 | |
| claim_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is already known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it only registers a plan and does not execute the target, which prevents the agent from expecting execution side effects. It does not describe permissions or return behavior, but with annotations present this is solid.
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 compact sentence with the verb+resource front-loaded and the important 'register only' caveat appended after a semicolon. No wasted wording, though the two ideas could be split for even faster scanning.
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 five-required-parameter write tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the definition covers purpose and the registration-only behavior but omits study_id semantics and any routing guidance among the many research_* siblings. Adequate but incomplete.
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 only 20%, so the description must carry meaning. It maps to steps, expected, and the associated judgments (claim_ids), and references the pending question, covering most required inputs. But study_id is not explained and no format or relationship details are added, leaving the low-coverage schema under-supported.
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 (创建/create) and resource (验证项/verification item) plus the fields it holds (步骤、预期结果、关联判断). It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from research_record_verification, but does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left partially to inference.
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?
The clause '只登记计划，不执行目标' usefully defines a boundary (registration only, no execution), which is a when-not signal. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like research_record_verification or research_add_claim, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.