Warm Night Fishing (暖夜垂钓)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool provides information, but does not mention side effects (none expected), authentication needs, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 sentences in a bilingual format efficiently convey the tool's purpose. Every word is meaningful; there is no redundancy or wasted text. Front-loaded with Chinese and English versions.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains that the tool provides a manual and command list. However, it could be slightly improved by clarifying that it is a read-only reference with no persistent effects, but this is not a major omission for a documentation tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to document beyond the schema. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 that the tool provides game rules and a full command list in Chinese, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fishing_new_game (starting a game) and fishing_play (playing). The verb is implied ('display' or 'provide') and the resource is the manual/command list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what the tool is, without indicating prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Users infer its purpose but receive no direct recommendation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (overwrites progress) and the guard (confirm:true), which is adequate transparency.

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 sentences per language, front-loaded with key info. Every word earns its place, no fluff.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is sufficient. It explains the destructive action and guard. Could optionally mention the result of success, but not necessary.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description echoes the confirm requirement but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts over a game, overwrites progress, and requires confirm:true. It is distinct from sibling tools like fishing_play or fishing_save_info.

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 specifies that confirm:true is required and warns about overwriting progress. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses chaining of up to 8 commands and explains the player_code behavior (first play vs resume). Adds useful context beyond the command execution.

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 concise, bilingual, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality: command execution, chaining, and save code usage. No major gaps for this gameplay tool.

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%, but description adds value by detailing command chaining and player_code usage. It explains the optionality and effect of omitting the save code, which is not fully captured in the schema.

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 explicitly states '执行钓鱼指令,一切游戏操作走这里' and provides examples (cast, status, buy), clearly indicating this is the main gameplay tool. It distinguishes from siblings like fishing_manual and fishing_new_game.

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?

Describes the tool as the main gameplay channel, supporting command chaining. It implies use for all fishing commands, while siblings cover manual, new game, etc. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses the kind of data returned and explicitly states 'no game secrets'. Without annotations, it carries the full burden, but does not mention side effects like read-only or network usage; still adequate.

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 sentences, bilingual, front-loaded with key information. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and return content. Slightly missing explicit read-only hint, but overall 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 coverage is 100% and the description repeats the parameter format and usage. No additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves save metadata (path, schema version, identity mode, progress) and explicitly excludes 'game secrets'. Distinguishes from siblings like fishing_play and fishing_new_game which have different purposes.

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?

Provides clear context: requires a save code (format WNF-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX) and advises to play first if no code. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but sufficient for a simple info tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: if the fish is uncaught or name mismatches, no card is generated. It also implies that the tool is read-only in that it only generates a card based on existing data. No contradictions.

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 concise, using a single sentence with Chinese and English separated by '/'. It front-loads the core purpose but could be slightly clearer by breaking into separate sentences. Minimal waste.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, and conditional behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: for 'fish', it explains the conditional output (no card if uncaught); for 'player_code', it suggests an alternative action. This extra context raises the score.

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 generates shareable cards of two kinds (encyclopedia or moment) and optionally for a specific caught fish. It uses specific verbs ('生成', 'generate') and resources ('图鉴分享卡', '稀有时刻分享卡'), and the sibling tools (e.g., fishing_play, fishing_save_info) are distinct in purpose.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: it mentions a prerequisite (player code) and directs users without one to use fishing_play first. It also specifies conditions (fish must be caught) but does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.