research_capture_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish write/no-destroy/no-open-world, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: repeated registration of the same node reuses the existing evidence (idempotent dedup), and the original Evidence ID, node ID and hash are preserved. It still omits failure behavior and what the call returns.

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 compact sentences, with the core action stated first and the idempotency behavior second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 non-destructive write tool with four required parameters, no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description covers the what and the dedup rule but leaves parameter meaning, prerequisites (e.g. an existing analysis_id) and the return value (evidence ID?) unaddressed.

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 25% (only study_id is documented), so the description carries the burden and does not meet it: analysis_id, node_id and title are never explained. Worse, it references "Evidence ID 与哈希" which are not parameters at all, potentially misleading the agent about the input surface.

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 names a specific verb (登记/register) and resource (已选择的静态节点 → 可引用证据), making the transformation clear. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling research_add_evidence, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

"将已选择的静态节点" implies a precondition — the node must already be selected — which gives implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from research_add_evidence or research_find_nodes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.