Retrieve, set, or save a user's IELTS reading and listening answering approaches so review explanations follow their preferred steps.
用户的做题方法（例如平行阅读法）。复盘前先读一遍，讲题时按他的方法说“下次在哪一步怎么做”。可以查看、设为当前、或保存用户改过的版本。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | ||
| method | No | save 时传：{ id, module, title, summary, steps:[{title, points[]}], fixes:[{before, after}], principles[], metrics:[{id, label, hint}] } | |
| module | No | ||
| method_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation ('保存用户改过的版本', '设为当前') but never says whether save overwrites an existing method, whether 'use' persists as a durable current setting, or what is returned. For a read/write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with what the resource is, then when to read it, then what actions exist. Every sentence carries information. Slightly dense and mixes workflow advice with capability listing, but no waste.
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 output schema, the description should indicate what get/list/use return, and it does not. It also leaves the module/method_id parameters and save semantics underspecified. Adequate for a small 4-parameter tool, but noticeable gaps remain.
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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It loosely maps to the action enum (查看≈get/list, 设为当前≈use, 保存≈save), and the nested method object is described in the schema. However, 'module' (reading/listening) and 'method_id' are unexplained in both places, leaving real ambiguity.
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 names a specific resource (the user's 做题方法, e.g. 平行阅读法) and enumerates the supported operations: 查看、设为当前、保存用户改过的版本. That is enough to tell it apart from siblings like weakness or report, which concern different resources. The name 'method' alone is ambiguous, but the description resolves it.
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 concrete usage context: read it before 复盘 and follow the user's method when explaining questions ('下次在哪一步怎么做'). That is a clear when-to-use signal. It does not state when to prefer one action over another (get vs list vs use) or any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.