Ranks enemy improvements and districts around a target area and returns a prioritized pillage route for wartime raids, prioritizing mines and districts while skipping already pillaged tiles.
掠夺经济:对指定区域内的敌方改良/区域估价排序,给掠夺路线。 战争期间对敌方腹地调用;矿山/区域优先,已掠夺过的格子自动排除。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radius | No | ||
| center_x | Yes | ||
| center_y | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses useful behavior: mines/districts are prioritized, already-pillaged tiles are automatically excluded, and results are ranked. It does not mention scope limits, but the key output-shaping rules are given, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.
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 compact sentences with zero redundancy: what the tool does first, then the usage condition and filtering rules. 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and readOnlyHint covers safety. The description supplies the wartime/enemy-territory context and ranking behavior; only the coordinate/radius semantics are under-specified.
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%, so the description carries the burden. The phrase 'specified area' conveys that center_x/center_y/radius define a scan region, but it does not clarify that the coordinates are tile positions or what units radius uses, leaving gaps an agent must guess for a 3-parameter call.
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: evaluates and ranks enemy improvements/districts in a specified area and outputs a pillage route. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_map_area or the various advisor tools, and no other listed tool covers pillage targeting.
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?
Explicitly names the context for use: during wartime, in enemy heartland territory. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., peacetime scouting), but the intended trigger is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.