Maa Reclamation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, yet it says nothing about side effects, in-game resource consumption, prerequisites (account/login state), duration, or whether the operation is interruptible. 'Automatic' hints that it runs unattended but conveys no behavioral contract.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or outcome, only a restated label.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description gives an agent nothing about what initiating an automated Reclamation run entails, how long it runs, or what conditions must hold. For an automation trigger tool with zero annotations, this is far too thin.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'theme' parameter has a default and a description noting only 'Tales' is currently available. The description adds nothing, but the schema already does the work, so baseline 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 four characters, "自动生息演算", which essentially restates the tool name and title ('Maa Reclamation') plus the word 'automatic'. It gives no verb and no resource beyond what the name already says, and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like maa_roguelike or maa_fight.

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 tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead. An agent has no signal for choosing maa_reclamation over maa_roguelike or maa_fight.

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