Fulfill a chosen psychological drive (survival, safety, belonging, esteem, self-actualization) with an optional amount from 0 to 1 to close the drive loop and update agent identity.
满足某驱力（闭环）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drive | No | ||
| amount | No | 满足量 0–1，默认 0.3 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that this mutates drive state, how satisfaction is applied, whether repeated calls compound, or what the effect ('闭环') actually means. The single parenthetical is suggestive but not informative.
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 one-line description is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is structurally sound. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, so it earns only a middling mark.
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 state-mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a 50%-covered parameter set, the description is too thin. An agent lacks the effect semantics, default behavior, and call-context it would need to invoke this confidently.
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 50%: 'amount' is documented in the schema itself (0–1, default 0.3) while the 'drive' enum of Maslow-style values lacks a description. The description adds no meaning to either parameter and does not compensate for the undocumented enum.
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 verb '满足' (satisfy) plus the resource '驱力' (drive) give a clear action-object pair, so an agent can grasp the basic intent. However, the parenthetical '（闭环）' (closed loop) is unexplained, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like intervene or event, which also plausibly affect internal state.
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 call this versus intervene, event, tick, or autostep, nor any precondition or exclusion. The agent must infer timing entirely from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.