遊戲發售日與預告片資料庫

Does 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 that each change record carries the original announcement link, but says nothing about scope (all games? a time window?), sort order, or freshness, which an agent would want before calling.

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 that spends no words on filler. It states the scope first and the payload second, which is the right ordering.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it partly does (change entries with announcement links). It still omits scope and ordering, so an agent cannot fully predict the result set.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter definition.

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 resource and scope: games whose official release schedule changed (delayed or advanced). This is clearly distinct from release_calendar and release_countdown, though it never names those siblings explicitly. The function is understandable at a glance.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not explain how this differs in practice from release_calendar, release_countdown, or get_game, leaving the agent to infer that this is the historical/changelog view.

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. It implies a read-only lookup via '查' but does not explicitly state read-only safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It mainly enumerates returned fields rather than behavioral traits.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core action and then lists returned data and parameter notes without filler. Every clause contributes useful 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 single-game lookup with no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned data fields and parameter language support. However, it omits guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like lookup_any_game or delay_history, and it does not disclose any behavioral traits since annotations are absent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single required parameter q, the description compensates by stating that both Chinese and English names are accepted and giving examples (GTA VI, 俠盜獵車手VI). This adds clear semantic guidance for the parameter beyond the bare schema type.

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 and resource (查單一遊戲) and enumerates the data returned, which helps distinguish it from list_games. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from lookup_any_game or delay_history, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives among siblings (lookup_any_game, list_games). The only usage hint is that Chinese or English names are accepted, which is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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. It discloses returned fields (announcement date, release date, status) and that filtering is possible, but omits pagination, result limits, explicit read-only assurance, and auth/rate-limit behavior. Minimum viable but with gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with semicolons, covering scope, fields, and filters without filler. Appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage. The description gives scope and some returned fields, but is incomplete for a 5-parameter list tool lacking return format, pagination, and parameter details.

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 0% for 5 parameters. The description mentions platform, status, and date filters, but leaves 'upcoming' undocumented and does not specify date formats or status enum meanings. It only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb '列出' (list) and resource '重點遊戲' with scope (2026–2027) and platforms. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings such as release_calendar or lookup_any_game, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

It says the list can be filtered by platform, status, and date, implying use for filtered game listings. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_game or release_calendar, and no exclusions.

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. It does disclose the data source (Wikidata public data), which reasonably implies a read-only, unauthenticated lookup and explains why results may cover arbitrary games, but it says nothing about latency, rate limits, or what happens when a title 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that also enumerates the returned fields. No wasted words, though the enumerated field list could be read as pre-empting output documentation.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned data (release date, platforms, developer, website, YouTube) which compensates for the missing output schema. It remains incomplete on parameter semantics and on its relationship to sibling tools.

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 0% and the single parameter is the cryptic name 'q'. The description's phrasing about looking up 'any game' weakly implies q is a game name, but it never clarifies whether q accepts a title string, a Wikidata Q-ID, or both — a meaningful gap for a lookup tool.

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 (look up) and resource (any game) and identifies the data source (Wikidata public data), which distinguishes it somewhat from local-database siblings like get_game and list_games. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer which tool is appropriate.

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 is given. The phrase 'any game' hints that this is for arbitrary titles outside the curated catalog, but the description never states when to prefer this over get_game or list_games, nor any prerequisites.

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. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the output includes undetermined titles, but it omits how the optional month parameter behaves when omitted, whether results are paginated, or what the return structure looks like.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the primary resource (monthly release calendar) and then the secondary inclusion (undetermined titles).

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main output but fails to specify what happens if month is omitted, which is an important gap given the optional parameter.

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 month format YYYY-MM is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the by-month grouping but adds no syntax, default, or requiredness details beyond that baseline.

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 identifies the resource: a game release calendar organized by month, plus titles that only have an announced period. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like release_countdown or list_games, but the scope is clear enough to infer.

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 alternatives such as release_countdown or list_games, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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. It does disclose one real behavioral trait not present in the schema: the default argument value (GTA VI). However, it says nothing about the read-only nature, how the game name in 'q' is resolved, or what happens on an unknown game.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is on the terse side but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return shape unexplained (e.g., an integer day count) and does not describe game-name resolution or failure behavior. It covers the core purpose but not enough for an agent to call it with full confidence.

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 0% — the single parameter 'q' has no type description. The description partially compensates by implying 'q' is a game identifier and that omitting it defaults to GTA VI, but it does not clarify whether 'q' expects a title, slug, or ID.

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 computation ('距離遊戲發售還有幾天' = days remaining until a game's release) and identifies the default subject (GTA VI). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like release_calendar (a listing of release dates) or get_game (game metadata), though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 release_calendar, get_game, or lookup_any_game, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the scope of the sentence.

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