Maa Startup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the high-level action, omitting what happens if the game is already running, required permissions, device connection requirements, failure modes, or side effects. Output schema exists, so return format need not be explained.

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 concise sentence with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized but perhaps overly sparse for a tool that launches an external application.

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?

For a startup tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not cover prerequisites (ADB connection, device state), expected behavior on success/failure, or interaction with sibling tools. Output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but other critical context is missing.

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%, so all three parameters (addr, client, timeout) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: launch the game (明日方舟) and enter its main interface. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as maa_run or maa_closedown.

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, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., ADB device connectivity), or how it relates to alternatives like maa_run or maa_closedown. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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