Maa Version

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

No annotations exist, so the full behavioral burden is on the description. 'Get' implies a safe read, and the output schema covers the response shape, but nothing states prerequisites such as whether either component must already be installed or what happens if it is not.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the action and both components, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter read with an output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any note about failing or partial results when one of the two components is not installed.

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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema also confirms an empty object with additionalProperties false.

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?

States a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('maa-cli 和 MaaCore 版本信息'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. No sibling tool is named, but none of the listed siblings deals with version reporting, so the operation is naturally distinct.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to check installed component versions, but the description never says when to prefer it (e.g., before calling maa_update_core or maa_update_cli) or what it does when a component is missing.

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