Maa Dir

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether the path is guaranteed to exist or is created on demand, or what happens for an uninstalled/invalid directory type. With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is not required, but the behavioral profile is essentially undocumented.

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 short phrase with zero waste and is trivially front-loaded, but for a tool with no annotations and no usage context it reads as under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string parameter), the schema fully documents the accepted values, and an output schema covers the return value, so little is missing structurally. However, with zero annotations and no usage or behavioral note, the description leaves an agent without the safety and context framing it would otherwise need.

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 dir_name parameter already enumerates all seven accepted values in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Chinese description pairs a specific verb (获取/get) with a specific resource (MAA 目录路径/directory path), which is unambiguous. Among siblings that are almost all action commands (startup, install, update), this read-only path lookup is intrinsically distinguishable, though the description itself does not name any sibling or scope boundary.

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 tool, what prerequisite context it requires, or which alternative to prefer for related needs. The usage is only inferable from the tool name and purpose, with no explicit guidance in the description text.

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