Retrieve due review items for Chinese postgraduate exam prep, organized by A/B/C priority and score band, with optional date, subject, and daily quota filters.
到期复习项（分层 A/B/C + 分值档 + 每日配额）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| quota | No | ||
| subject | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, whether quota consumption or state changes occur, or what the return shape is. It only hints at the tier/score structure of the items.
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 description is very short and front-loads the resource, but it is a noun fragment in parentheses rather than a structured sentence. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 three-parameter review/scheduling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies almost none of the information needed to invoke it correctly: no verb, no usage context, no parameter meaning, and no behavioral disclosure.
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% for three parameters. '每日配额' loosely maps to `quota`, but `date` and `subject` are not addressed at all, and no formats, defaults, or constraints are provided, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 the resource ('到期复习项' / due review items) and adds scope via the parenthetical ('分层 A/B/C + 分值档 + 每日配额'). However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool lists, returns, or marks items, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling review_grade.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not state the context in which this should be called, nor does it mention review_grade or any other alternative, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.