Maa Copilot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies none: it says nothing about side effects, whether a task is launched/queued, whether the CLI or game must be running, permission requirements, or what happens on invalid URIs. For an execute-style tool this is a serious 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?

A single four-character phrase is not wasteful in length but is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded statement of action or scope that an agent could act on.

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, so return values needn't be explained, but with one required parameter, no annotations, and an execution-flavored tool, the description should at minimum state what the tool does and what the URI triggers. None of that is present.

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% – the maa_uris parameter already documents the space-separated URI/local-path format. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for fully documented params 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?

"自动抄作业" is slang that conveys roughly 'automatically run a shared task/strategy file', which is more than a pure restatement of the title, but it never names the resource or the action precisely (execute a MAA copilot task JSON/URI). Nothing distinguishes it from sibling copilot tools such as maa_sscopilot or maa_paradoxcopilot, so an agent cannot pick correctly from the name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information. The only implicit cue is '自动', suggesting an automation/execution action, which is far too thin given three copilot-flavored siblings competing for the same intent.

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