载入存档码

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 that loading lets you continue that life and suggests look to see state, but omits important side effects like whether current progress is overwritten, whether the code is consumed, or what happens on invalid input. This is a significant gap for a state-changing load operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and no filler. Efficiently structured and every word 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?

One-parameter tool with no output schema; description covers the core action and a follow-up (use look). However, it lacks behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, failure handling, and return behavior, making it minimally complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'code' mentioning the TL1 prefix, and the tool description repeats the same. No additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

Description uses specific verb '载入' (load) and resource '存档码' (save code), with clear TL1 prefix hint. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like tokenlife_start (new game) and tokenlife_save (create code).

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?

States the use case: '载入主人给你的存档码' (load the save code given by master) and implies you should use it when you have a TL1 code. It also advises using look afterwards to view the state. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but context is clear.

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