Locate campus service points such as supermarkets, parcel stations, laundry, barbers, print shops, banks, and vending machines with operating hours, filtered by Westlake campus or all campuses.
校内生活服务网点（超市、快递驿站、干洗洗衣、理发服务、打印点、银行网点、自动售卖机位置与营业时间）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campus | No | 校区名，缺省表示全部校区。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at return content by mentioning 'location and business hours,' but never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, how hours are formatted, or what happens when the optional campus parameter is omitted beyond the schema's note. The burden is largely unmet.
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?
It is a single compact parenthetical enumeration with no wasted words, but it is not front-loaded with an action or purpose statement — the reader gets a category list rather than 'what this tool does.' Efficient yet weakly structured.
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?
For a simple one-optional-param lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys scope and the types of information returned (locations, hours). It is still missing the operation verb, read-only assurance, and any output shape hints, which matters more given the absence of annotations.
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?
There is only one optional parameter (campus) with 100% schema description coverage and an explicit enum, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about campus-scoped behavior or the default-all behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 — on-campus daily-life service points — and enumerates the categories covered (supermarket, package station, laundry, hair salon, printing, bank, vending machines), which distinguishes it from campus_dining. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that it is a lookup/list operation, and it never names the siblings it is not (campus_map, campus_housing, campus_dining).
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no routing to alternatives. An agent must decide on its own between this tool and campus_map, campus_dining, or sport_sites, none of which are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.