Maa Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only implies mutation via '更新'. It says nothing about whether this downloads from the network, whether it overwrites an existing installation, whether it requires permissions or a stopped instance, or whether it is reversible. For an update tool that can alter installed binaries, that is a significant gap.

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 padding; the resource scope is front-loaded. It is efficient, but at this length the brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline, which is penalized under other dimensions rather than this one.

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 zero params means the schema carries little burden, so the remaining gap is entirely about identity: the agent cannot determine what makes this different from maa_update_core or maa_hot_update. That ambiguity is the one thing the description needed to resolve and does not.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related wording is needed or expected here.

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 verb and resource (update MaaCore and its resources), which is more specific than a bare restatement of the title. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as maa_update_core, maa_update_cli, maa_hot_update, and maa_self_update. maa_update_core in particular appears to overlap directly with what this description claims, leaving the agent unable to tell which one to choose.

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, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information at all. Given a sibling set containing four other update-flavored tools (maa_update_core, maa_update_cli, maa_hot_update, maa_self_update), the absence of routing guidance is a real selection hazard rather than a minor omission.

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