Normalize parsed document sections into atomic correction items with source spans, enabling precise, source-bound corrections for Taiwan interior decoration permit documents.
Normalize parsed document sections into atomic correction items with source spans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| article | No | ||
| law_name | No | ||
| document_parsed | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It omits any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires authentication. The description only mentions normalization without side effects.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could be improved by including a brief list or additional context without adding significant length.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what 'atomic correction items' or 'source spans' are, nor how the input maps to output. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's purpose or usage.
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?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter meaning or how they relate to 'parsed document sections'. The 'document_parsed' object is left undefined, making selection and invocation confusing.
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 clearly states the tool normalizes parsed document sections into atomic correction items with source spans, specifying the input and output. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like build_hitl_confirmation_packet or build_law_snapshot, which may also involve corrections.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent gets no context on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.