MK 任务点清单

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that onlyPublished defaults to true (silently hiding unpublished units), the default for onlyUnfinished, whether login/auth is required, or what the returned items contain — all material for interpreting results.

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 purpose front-loaded and the enum table appended, no filler. The enum listing is terse but every token carries information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain at least how onlyPublished/onlyUnfinished behave and what a returned task point looks like. It only covers purpose and the contentType enum, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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%, and the description compensates for contentType by enumerating its allowed values (1/3/4/5/6) and loosely maps '完成度' to onlyUnfinished. However termId and the onlyPublished default (true) remain completely undocumented.

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+resource: lists all course 任务点 with optional filtering by type/completion. An agent can distinguish it from mk_get_course (single course detail) and mk_list_courses (course list). Lacks explicit sibling differentiation but the scope is clear.

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?

Implies when to use it — when you need the unit/task list for a course, optionally filtered — but never states prerequisites (e.g. must be logged in, termId must come from mk_list_courses) or when to prefer mk_get_course / mk_complete_unit instead.

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