Maa Recruit Get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet '获取当前公招结果' says nothing about whether this is read-only, whether it requires a prior maa_startup or recruitment state, or what happens when no recruitment is active. The implicit read nature is helpful but insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than optimal structuring.

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 exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the single optional parameter is fully documented by the schema. Still, the description omits state prerequisites and sibling differentiation, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent operating among many maa_recruit_* tools.

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%, covering the single optional 'client' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the client selection or its defaults beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb 获取 (get) plus resource 公招结果 (recruitment results) makes the operation identifiable at a glance. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like maa_recruit_collect or maa_recruit_all, which plausibly return similar recruitment data, so an agent must guess between them.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus maa_recruit_collect, maa_recruit_all, or maa_recruit_start, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The agent is left to infer the usage context entirely.

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