Maa Infrast Energy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, whether sanity/energy is consumed or granted, whether it requires an active game session, or whether it can fail partway. For what appears to be a state-changing automation action, this is a critical 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?

At six characters the text is not concise but under-specified; there is no front-loaded statement of action, scope, or outcome. Brevity here costs comprehension rather than saving anything.

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 output schema covers return values and the single parameter is documented, but with no annotations and no behavioral text, an agent cannot know the preconditions or effects of invoking this action. Given ~30 sibling tools, the definition is not complete enough to call safely.

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?

Only one parameter (client, default "Official") exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully and the description adds nothing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 "基建收取理智" essentially restates the tool name (base/infrast + collect + sanity≈energy) in Chinese rather than stating a distinct operation. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as maa_infrast_production, maa_infrast_trade, maa_infrast_purchase, or maa_infrast_switch, all of which are equally plausible 'base infrastructure' actions.

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 use this versus the other five infrast tools, no prerequisites (e.g. game must be running, base configured), and no exclusions. The agent must infer timing and alternatives entirely from the tool name.

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