Maa Closedown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only says 'close the client' without disclosing whether it force-terminates, requires ADB connectivity, what happens if the client is not running, or any side effects. For a state-changing tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler text. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being a structural flaw.

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?

With no annotations and a state-changing operation, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not mention that the address is optional or how the client type affects behavior, nor does it provide any operational context for correct invocation. The output schema covers return values, but behavioral and usage context are missing.

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 the schema already defines both parameters (addr and client) with defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema is fully documented.

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: '关闭' (close) the '明日方舟游戏客户端' (Arknights game client). It is clearly distinguishable from maa_startup by action, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools or mention scope (e.g., all instances, ADB targets).

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 like maa_startup, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this should be called to terminate the game client, but no context is provided.

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