Maa Install Cli

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it does not say whether installation is destructive, whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions/network access are needed, or how long it takes. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the operational behavior of an install operation remains undisclosed.

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 a single short phrase with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but says almost nothing beyond the resource names.

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?

For an install tool in a 33-sibling namespace with no annotations, the description omits prerequisites, the relationship to the install/update siblings, and any side-effect disclosure. The output schema mitigates return-value gaps, but the selection-critical context is 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?

The single `force` parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as forcing a reinstall. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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?

The description names a specific verb (安装/install) and specific resources (MAA CLI and MaaCore), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like maa_install, maa_update_cli, or maa_update_core, leaving ambiguity about when each applies.

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_install, maa_update_cli, or maa_update_core, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., first-run versus repair). The agent must infer usage 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.