autostep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the entity acts autonomously and persists without intervention, but omits whether the call mutates state, what side effects occur, and whether the advancement is reversible or time-limited beyond the schema's default.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's concept, with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter advancement tool with no output schema, the description covers the core concept but leaves open what the tool returns or how world state changes. It is sufficient to select the tool but not to predict its effects.

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%, and the single parameter (seconds) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb (推进/advance) and resource (自主行为/autonomous behavior), adding that it decides based on drives. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like tick or intervene, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tick, event, or intervene. The parenthetical note that the entity survives even without player intervention hints at a condition but does not translate into actionable usage instructions.

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