manual_findings

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. '读取' implies a safe read, and '已回填' hints that only completed entries are returned, but nothing states permissions, behavior for reports with no manual findings, or error conditions. The existence of an output schema covers return shape, which keeps this from being a 1.

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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being a model of tight 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?

The tool is simple (one required param, output schema present), so little is needed, but the description omits the one thing an agent cannot get from structured fields: how this read differs from get_evidence and manual_record. That omission makes the definition incomplete for selection purposes.

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 the single report_id parameter, so the description must compensate. '某份报告' does establish that report_id selects the target report whose findings are returned, which is meaningful but minimal — no format, no example, no statement of what happens with an invalid id.

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 gives a verb (读取) and a resource (人工核查证据) scoped to a report, so the basic operation is inferable. But it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_evidence, manual_checklist, or manual_record, which sound closely related, leaving the agent to guess which one surfaces filled-in manual findings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. the report must already have manual checks recorded), and no named alternative. With three manual_*/get_evidence siblings present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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