Retrieve governance theory references: three laws, three checks, and standard sources with DOI, repository, and official links; route queries by domain to relevant papers.
LGD 全程治理论知识端点：返回三律/三查/规范出处(DOI·仓库·官网)，可按主题路由到对应域论文(金融/证据/政务/链上/驾驶/数据/低空/机器人/工业/基因/教育/医械)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | 主题/问题，如 '金融AI' 或 '什么是三查' | |
| domain | No | 可选：直接指定域关键词 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (three laws, three checks, normative sources with DOI/repo/official-site, domain papers), but says nothing about whether it is read-only, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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?
A single dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the endpoint's purpose. It is somewhat crammed with parenthetical lists, but every element earns its place and nothing is redundant.
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?
Both parameters are optional, no output schema and no annotations exist, so the description needs to do more. It adequately covers what is returned and the domain routing, but omits usage guidance and any behavioral/access context for a knowledge lookup.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by enumerating the domains the `domain` parameter can route to (金融/证据/政务/链上/驾驶/数据/低空/机器人/工业/基因/教育/医械), which the schema's '可选：直接指定域关键词' leaves open.
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 (LGD 全程治理论知识端点) and states concretely what it returns: 三律/三查/规范出处 with DOI/repo/official-site citations, plus topic-based routing to domain papers. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling tools (a3_assess, audit_evidence_chain, gov_scan), which an agent must distinguish from this one.
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 phrase '可按主题路由到对应域论文' describes a capability rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus a3_assess or the other siblings, and no when-not or prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.