Save a diagnostic result JSON file to the local case database and return its case_id for later retrieval.
build_report가 만든 진단 결과 JSON 파일을 로컬 사례 DB에 저장하고 case_id를 돌려줍니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagnosis_json_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the mutation (writes to a local case DB) and the return value (case_id), which is genuine behavioral information. It omits permission requirements, overwrite/duplicate handling, and failure behavior for an unannotated write tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, the source artifact, the destination, and the return value. Efficient, though it could note the ordering dependency more explicitly.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description compensates by stating the case_id return, which is correct. However, for an unannotated write tool with an undocumented parameter it leaves gaps around error cases, destination details, and duplicate handling.
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?
The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantic origin of the path (output produced by build_report), which is useful, but does not specify path format, absolute vs. relative, or file requirements.
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 (save) and resource (local case DB), and names the upstream producer build_report, which lets an agent place it in a workflow. It reads as distinct from the get_case retrieval sibling, though it does not differentiate itself from other write-side tools like record_review or record_outcome.
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?
Usage is implied: the input is 'the JSON file build_report creates,' which hints at ordering and prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no stated alternative for persisting or retrieving cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.