Maa Paradoxcopilot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether this starts an asynchronous run, blocks, requires the game to be launched first, or what side effects it has. The presence of an output schema relieves some of the burden of explaining return values, but operational behavior 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 short, but it is not concise in the useful sense — a single four-character phrase that conveys nothing beyond the title. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With 1 required param and an output schema the structural side is covered, but a tool sitting in a family of 34 similarly prefixed automation tools needs at minimum a statement of what operation it performs and when to prefer it over maa_copilot or maa_sscopilot. That is entirely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single param 'maa_uris' (space-separated URIs) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('Paradoxcopilot' → 'paradox simulation'), with only the modifier 'automatic' added. It gives no indication of what the tool actually does at runtime (start a task? list jobs?) or how it differs from close siblings like maa_copilot, maa_sscopilot, and maa_roguelike.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent must guess entirely from the name that this is the 'paradox simulation' variant among many similarly named automation tools.

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