Fetches summaries, scores, and flags by ID or bucket when the digest lacks enough detail to write a grounded briefing.
按 id / bucket 取正文与细节。只在 digest 不够写的时候用。 硬约束：ids ≤ 12；limit ≤ 20；默认只给 scores+flags，要正文必须显式 fields=['summary']；摘要默认 240 字。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | digest 里的 id（支持前缀）。给了 ids 就忽略 bucket。 | |
| limit | No | ||
| bucket | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| summary_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the default return is only scores+flags and that summary text requires explicitly setting fields=['summary'], which is a real calling gotcha. However, the stated caps (ids ≤ 12, limit ≤ 20, 240-char summary) merely restate schema limits, and it never states the read-only nature, pagination/offset behavior, or what 'digest' refers to.
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?
Three dense clauses with zero filler: purpose first, then usage condition, then hard constraints. Every sentence is front-loaded and carries information relevant to invocation.
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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and the key default-fields behavior but leaves several parameters and the response structure under-specified. Adequate to call it, but not complete.
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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining ids/limit/fields/summary_chars constraints and the id-vs-bucket selection modes. But it leaves bucket semantics, offset, and run_id unexplained, and most of what it says about ids/limit duplicates the schema's own maxItems/maximum values.
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: fetch body text and details (取正文与细节) by id or bucket. This is clearly distinct from a scan/check operation, but it never names the siblings radar_scan or radar_check, and instead references a 'digest' that is not a listed tool, so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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?
It gives an explicit usage condition: use only when the digest is not enough for writing (只在 digest 不够写的时候用). This tells the agent when to reach for this tool versus staying with summary-level output, though it never names the actual alternative tools (radar_scan / radar_check), leaving routing partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.