Maa Roguelike

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it: nothing about whether this is a long-running blocking task, whether it can be cancelled, what it consumes, or what it produces. The single word '自动' hints at automation but discloses no operational traits.

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?

At eight characters it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient. There is no structure to front-load because there is essentially no content.

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 need not be explained, and parameters are covered by the schema. But for a tool that presumably kicks off an automated multi-stage game run, the description leaves the agent without enough to know what will happen or when to invoke it.

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 both theme (including all valid theme values) and starts_count fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the 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 names a resource (集成战略/roguelike mode) and implies automated execution, so an agent can roughly infer it runs the Arknights Integrated Strategies mode. However, it never says it launches a task, and it gives no differentiation from siblings like maa_fight, maa_copilot, or maa_paradoxcopilot that also start automated runs.

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 (e.g., MAA must be connected, game running, CLI installed), and no alternatives named. The agent has to guess whether this starts, configures, or reports on the roguelike mode.

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