Switch an ongoing Socratic coaching session to simple mode: skip remaining questions and use existing analysis to generate a 10-step investment research template, then archive to scenario library.
将进行中的 Socratic 多轮辅导会话切换到简单模式。
放弃剩余的问答题，直接用已有的分析上下文走一遍
10 步标准投研模板输出，并正常归档到情景库。
Args:
session_id: 由 start_coaching 返回的会话 ID
Returns:
dict: simple 模式结果，含 answer 和 scenario_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that remaining questions are abandoned, existing analysis context is reused, a 10-step investment research template is run, and the result is archived to the scenario library; it also states the return shape.
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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently documents behavior, the single argument, and the return value. There is no redundant or filler text.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description supplies enough context for correct invocation: it identifies the session prerequisite, explains side effects and archival behavior, and describes the returned fields answer and scenario_id.
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 coverage is 0%, but the only parameter is explicitly described as the session ID returned by start_coaching. This adds meaningful origin and usage context beyond the bare schema type string.
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 states a specific verb and resource: switching an ongoing Socratic coaching session to simple mode. It also clarifies the resulting behavior (abandon remaining questions, run the 10-step template, archive to scenario library), which distinguishes it from siblings such as continue_coaching or abandon_coaching.
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 phrase '进行中的' establishes the required context: this applies to an ongoing coaching session. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when the session is already in simple mode or should instead be continued or abandoned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.