Maa Infrast Production

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 discloses nothing beyond the bare action: no permission/state requirements, no resource cost, no indication of whether starting a task is repeatable or conflicts with a running task. It is not misleading, but it adds almost no behavioral information for an action tool.

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?

It is one short sentence with no waste and the action is front-loaded, but the terseness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing — there is no operational content beyond the name-level phrase.

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 and a fully documented single parameter reduce the burden, but for a game-action tool with no annotations the description should at least state requirements and what the returned result means for the started task. As written, an agent cannot tell what state it must be in or what side effects to expect.

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?

The single 'client' parameter has 100% schema coverage including a default of 'Official', so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description adds nothing about valid client values or when to change the default, which is the expected baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific action (start a manufacturing task) in a specific subsystem (infrastructure/base production), with the parenthetical '开始制造任务' removing ambiguity about whether it configures or starts production. It is distinguishable from siblings like maa_infrast_trade or maa_infrast_purchase, though it never names those alternatives to reinforce the distinction.

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 versus maa_infrast_manage or maa_infrast_switch, no stated prerequisites (e.g. being in the base, having materials), and no mention of what happens after the task is started. The agent must infer all operational context.

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