Retrieve full details of a stored penetration testing experience by ID, including title, description, tags, tool code, and status for direct knowledge base access.
按 id 获取一条经验的完整内容（标题、详情、标签、工具代码、状态等）。 参数: experience_id: 经验的 id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| experience_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the payload fields. It never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, what happens if the id does not exist, or whether authentication is required.
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 short lines, front-loaded with the operation and then the parameter, with no filler. The trailing '参数:' block is slightly redundant given the schema but costs little.
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 exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple single-required-param fetch. However, for a 13-sibling toolset, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the definition only minimally 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 0% and the single parameter is documented only as '经验的 id', which merely restates the parameter name. No format, expected source of the id, or distinguishing semantics are added, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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+resource ('按 id 获取一条经验') and enumerates the returned fields (标题、详情、标签、工具代码、状态). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_experience or list_all_experiences, which an agent could otherwise confuse with a retrieval tool.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrase '按 id 获取' weakly implies the caller must already have an id, but the description never says to prefer this over search_experience when only a query is available, nor does it state any exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.