MK 提交测验(拟真作答)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the deliberate side effect of injecting wrong answers (~25%, 1-3 questions), that real timestamps are written to the answer sheet, and that pacing is scaled to fit sessionSeconds. It doesn't state irreversibility of the submission, required auth, or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the action sequence before the timing knob, and every clause carries information. It is tight but packed with parenthetical detail, which makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideal definition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the sequence, the intentional-wrong-answer behavior, and the timeout constraint. What's missing is what the caller gets back on success/failure and whether a submission can be re-run or undone, but the core behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented. The description still adds value: it clarifies that sessionSeconds compresses the whole session while preserving relative pacing ratios – semantics beyond the plain min/max in the schema – and reinforces wrongCount's auto/25% behavior. unitId remains unaddressed in both places.

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 action chain: write an 'open quiz' study record, answer each question at a realistic pace with real timestamps, deliberately miss some questions, then submit. This is concrete enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with a sibling (e.g. mk_get_quiz, which presumably fetches the paper first), so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied – the agent must infer that this is called after the quiz is known (likely after mk_get_quiz) and that sessionSeconds exists to fit MCP timeouts. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives among the many mk_* siblings. The timeout-adaptation note is the only real usage context provided.

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