Evaluates the current screen against declared states from a knowledge pack using UI evidence, returns ok when all match, and lists missing evidence separately.
按知识包的状态判别式求值当前屏幕：先采证据（同 ui2.screen_evidence），再对声明状态逐个判别式求值——全满足=ok，缺证据单列（不出具结论）。这是'证据与判读分离'的声明面
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | ||
| pack | No | 只求值该包；缺省求值全部已加载包 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses evidence collection behavior (same as ui2.screen_evidence), the one-by-one predicate evaluation, and result semantics — all satisfied = ok, missing evidence is listed separately and no conclusion is issued. It does not cover side effects or permission needs, but for a check/evaluation tool this is a strong disclosure.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose before detailing the process. It is efficient, though the closing conceptual phrase adds jargon rather than operational detail.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains evaluation and partial-result semantics well, but leaves the game parameter completely unexplained and does not clarify what packs are loaded or how the caller should supply context.
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 only 50%: pack has a schema description but game has none, and the tool description never mentions either parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented game 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?
States a specific verb and resource: evaluate the current screen against knowledge-pack state predicates. It also signals its relationship to ui2.screen_evidence for evidence collection, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other siblings like ui2.state or ui2.scene_match.
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 explains the process but never states when to use this tool versus ui2.screen_evidence, ui2.state, or ui2.scene_match. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.