Merge human-reviewed CSV files back into evaluation run results. Submit multiple CSVs to enable crowdsourced majority voting and agreement-rate scoring.
把人工评审 CSV 合并回运行结果；传多份 CSV 即众包（多数投票 + 一致率）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html_out | No | ||
| out_json | No | ||
| result_json | Yes | ||
| review_csvs | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait (majority voting and agreement rate when multiple CSVs are passed), which goes beyond a simple merge. Yet it does not mention whether the operation mutates the result file, how conflicts are resolved, or what side effects occur, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the core operation and then adds the critical crowdsourcing nuance. There is zero redundancy, and every phrase earns its place.
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?
An output schema is present, so return-value explanation is not needed. However, the description omits param-level details, the required CSV format, merge conflict behavior, and whether the operation is in-place or returns new output. It gives the key idea but leaves an agent uncertain about invocation details.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does map review_csvs to the human review CSVs and result_json to the run results, and it explains the multi-CSV aggregation semantics. However, html_out and out_json are entirely unexplained, and the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 (merge/合并) and resource (human review CSV into run results), and adds the distinctive crowdsourcing behavior (majority voting + agreement rate). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like export_review or compare_runs without needing to open the schema.
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?
The description implies the tool is used when human review CSVs exist and need to be merged back into run results, and that passing multiple CSVs activates crowdsourcing. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.