符文戰場新手指南

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states what data is returned and its version/language scope. It implies a read-only retrieval (取得) but says nothing about format, completeness, or whether the date is a fixed snapshot. The version and language qualifiers add some real context, but disclosure remains thin.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and packs the qualifiers (language, format, version) without any filler. Every clause 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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what set of data is returned and which version. The only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at the result structure or whether it is exhaustive, but output format is not required to be described here.

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?

Zero parameters are defined, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description correctly implies the entire call is parameterless by specifying the fixed scope (English, Standard, dated version) that would otherwise be a parameter.

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?

Gives a specific verb (取得/retrieve) plus a precise resource (英文版 Standard 禁卡表與禁用戰場) and even pins the version date (2026-07-16). The resource is clearly distinct from the rules/FAQ/chapter siblings, though it never names an alternative to route against. Clear and specific, just without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives (search_rules, lookup_term) are mentioned. However, the tool takes zero parameters and is a self-contained lookup keyed by a versioned banlist, so the intended usage is strongly implied by the title and resource. Meets the implied-usage bar, no more.

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 the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the output format (Markdown full text) and omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for invalid slugs, and confirmation that the operation is read-only.

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, front-loaded sentence in which every element (verb, resource scope, output format) earns its place. There is no filler or repetition.

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 read tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description states the return format and basic scope. However, it does not explain the slug parameter or provide usage context relative to siblings, leaving meaningful gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only implies a chapter identifier (某一章) without explaining the slug parameter. The enum in the schema lists all valid chapter slugs and is largely self-documenting, partially mitigating the 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?

The description states a specific verb (取得/get), resource (符文戰場新手指南某一章/a chapter of the Rune Battlefield beginner guide), and output format (Markdown 全文). It distinguishes the resource from siblings like get_faq or search_rules by focusing on chapter full text, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as search_rules, get_faq, or lookup_term. The phrase 某一章 implies selecting a specific chapter but does not route the agent among sibling tools.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, caching/freshness of the FAQ, or the shape of the returned content, leaving the behavior largely unspecified.

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 short sentence with no filler that front-loads the action and resource. It is efficient, though extremely terse, offering no elaboration that would earn a 5.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose. However, it omits any detail about return format or scope of the FAQ, which would help an agent know what to expect.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to retrieve the FAQ, consistent with the empty 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 states a specific verb (取得/get) and resource (符文戰場新手常見問題與答案 – the Rune Battlefield beginner FAQ Q&A). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_banlist, get_chapter, and search_rules by resource type, but it does not explicitly position itself against those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., lookup_term or search_rules for other Rune Battlefield questions). The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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 at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the tool returns (Chinese translation plus explanation), which is useful, but says nothing about match behavior (exact vs. fuzzy, case sensitivity) or what happens when a term is not found.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the clarifying examples are folded in without waste. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and rough return content, but leaves gaps on lookup semantics (exact match?) and failure behavior. Adequate but not thorough for a tool with zero structured support.

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 'term' has no schema-level documentation. The description partially compensates by giving example values (Might, Rune, Conquer), clarifying the expected vocabulary, but does not specify format, casing, or language of input.

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 verb (查 = look up) and a precise resource (English card-face terms from the Rune Battlefield and their Chinese translation/explanation), with concrete examples (Might, Rune, Conquer). It is clearly a glossary/terminology lookup, distinct from get_faq, get_chapter, get_banlist, and search_rules, though it does not explicitly draw that boundary against search_rules.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word '查' plus the term examples; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over search_rules or get_faq. An agent can reasonably infer it is for terminology lookups, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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 the burden. It discloses the return shape (chapters and paragraphs) and the corpus searched, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination/size of results.

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, front-loaded sentence leading with the verb, with no filler. It is dense and avoids wasted words, though the parenthetical language notes make it slightly heavy.

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-parameter search tool, the description states the corpus, language, and return format, which is sufficient. With no output schema, it compensates by describing what is returned (chapters and paragraphs).

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'query' and its keyword examples. The description adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (搜尋/search) and a precise resource (rules explanations from the Riftbound TCG English beginner's guide), plus the output form (chapters and paragraphs). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_term or get_faq.

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 when-to-use guidance or conditions selecting this over get_chapter, lookup_term, or get_faq are given. The searchable scope is implied by the description but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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