Read up to 20 retrieved exam paper records, returning academic year, semester, and Final or Resit type to distinguish same-year, same-name papers. Does not read question text.
读取检索得到的试卷详情，返回学年、学期和考试类型（Final 正考 / Resit 补考），一次最多 20 份。用于区分同年同名的试卷，不读取题目正文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added context is what earns credit: the 20-record cap per call, the exact return fields, and the explicit statement that question bodies are not read. It does not mention error behavior or what happens with invalid/nonexistent IDs.
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 tight sentences: the read action plus return fields come first, then the distinguishing purpose, then the negative scope. No filler, and everything needed to route the call is front-loaded.
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 correctly names the returned fields, and with annotations covering safety it need not re-explain read-only behavior. It does not address behavior when some of the up-to-20 IDs are missing or invalid, which is a minor gap for a batch lookup tool.
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 0%, but the description compensates by stating the 20-item ceiling (matching maxItems) and, more importantly, indicating that the record_ids originate from a prior search rather than being arbitrary identifiers. The numeric-string pattern is left to the schema, but the origin constraint is real added meaning.
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 and resource (读取检索得到的试卷详情) and enumerates the returned fields: 学年、学期、考试类型. It also explicitly contrasts with the content-fetching sibling by noting 不读取题目正文, so an agent can separate it from paperbridge_download without opening schemas.
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?
Gives a clear usage context (用于区分同年同名的试卷) and implies a workflow prerequisite by scoping input to 检索得到的 records, i.e. IDs must come from paperbridge_search. It does not explicitly name or exclude the download sibling as an alternative, so it stops 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.