Maa Recruit Collect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether collecting consumes or redeems the recruitment slots, what happens when no result is available, or what state changes occur — all critical for an automation action.

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?

The single four-character phrase contains no filler, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a tool with side effects and multiple near-identical siblings.

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?

No annotations, no usage routing, and no mention of side effects or state, despite an output schema and a crowded sibling namespace. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this confidently over its siblings.

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%, so both the slot index (0-3) and client type are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at baseline 3 given the schema's completeness.

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?

States a concrete verb and object (收取公招结果 = collect recruitment results), which is clear enough to act on. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the closely named siblings maa_recruit_get and maa_recruit_all, so an agent cannot tell which of the three to call.

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_recruit_get, maa_recruit_start, or maa_recruit_all, and no preconditions are given. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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