Maa Remainder

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. It implies a pure computation returning an offset value but says nothing about whether it is side-effect free, how the timezone affects the result, or what the returned offset means — leaving the agent to guess at behavior.

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 sentence with zero padding, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient front-loading. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, which covers the return-value burden. However, the core concept ('DayMod condition offset') is never defined, so for a domain-specific tool in a 35-sibling suite the description is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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% with only two optional parameters (divisor, timezone), both already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never explains how 'divisor' relates to the 'offset' it claims to return.

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 says it 'gets the offset of the DayMod condition' (获取 DayMod 条件的偏移量), which is a verb plus a resource, but 'DayMod condition' is unexplained internal jargon and the name 'maa_remainder' suggests a remainder computation rather than an offset. With 35 sibling tools and nothing to distinguish this from task-scheduling tools like maa_startup or maa_activity, an agent cannot confidently tell what this returns.

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 call this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the title and jargon term 'DayMod'.

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