get_faction_units

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description still adds substantive meaning: it explicitly states the page size of 20 and, more importantly, defines the denominator as 去重后的可解析军表参赛记录, which explains how the rate is computed and fills a real semantic gap. It still omits ordering rules and what happens with an unresolvable faction_id.

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 compact sentence with the scope and page size front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds information, and it does not waste tokens on detail that the schema already covers.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and an openWorld annotation, which together create a heavy burden to describe. The description covers only the pagination and the denominator, but not what identifies a faction, how the date and release filters interact, or what the response contains, which is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry that burden and does not. It only clarifies the page size of 20 and says nothing about faction_id, format (individual vs team), date_from/date_to, mfm_group, release_id, or dataset_revision, which leaves most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 combination: 查询 + 单位出场率, scoped to a faction page and paginated at 20 per page. The phrase 同口径 ('same methodology') is left unexplained, and the description does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as get_faction_analysis or get_faction_detachments, but the core operation remains discernible.

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?

The mention of 种族页 implies the tool is intended for a faction page view, which gives some implied context for use. However, it never says when to choose this over get_faction_analysis or get_faction_detachments, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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