Maa Activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about authentication, device-connection requirements, failure modes, or freshness of the returned activity data. It adds almost nothing beyond restating the name.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the core resource front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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, relieving the description of explaining return values, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still, for a tool with no annotations, the description omits essential operating context (device connection, client-type meaning) that an agent needs before invoking it correctly.

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%, so both parameters (addr – ADB device address, client – client type) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('获取游戏当前活动信息' – get current game activity info), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling maa_ tools (e.g., maa_check, maa_fight, maa_version) whose scope could plausibly overlap.

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 maa_check or maa_version, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., a connected device, an initialized MAA instance). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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