call_calc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the key behavior: the round ends, the move can be countered, and the caller may bear a covering penalty (包牌惩罚). It does not state whether the action is reversible, what happens to a successful vs. countered call, or any permission/precondition rules.

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 that front-loads the action and its effect. Nothing is wasted, though a reader unfamiliar with the game's terminology gets no elaboration.

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 mutating round-ending game action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the gist and the main risk, but leaves out the success outcome, scoring implications, and failure modes beyond stale revisions.

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 100%, and the single revision parameter is already fully explained (latest-state revision; stale operations rejected) in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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?

Names a specific action (发起算牌, initiate the calc declaration) and its immediate effect (结束本轮, ends the current round). It also gestures at the counter-mechanic ('可能被反算'), which loosely relates it to the respond_anti_calc sibling, but it never names alternatives explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this rather than play_cards, discard_card, or wait_for_action. Only consequences ('may be countered') are given, which is context for the decision, not guidance on making it.

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