hold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'hold position' and does not reveal key behaviors such as whether the unit automatically attacks nearby enemies, whether current orders are canceled, or whether the command is reversible. This is a significant gap for a unit-command tool.

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 short sentence with a parenthetical English clarification, so it is tightly packed and front-loaded. It avoids tautology and communicates the core action efficiently, though the brevity contributes to under-specification.

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 command, the description provides only the basic intent. Without annotations, an output schema, or any note about the effect on the unit, an agent cannot fully predict the outcome of invoking the tool. Sibling differentiation and behavioral context are missing, so the description is not complete enough for safe correct usage.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare integer unit_id parameter. It implicitly identifies the unit as the target of the hold command, but it doesn't explain how to obtain a unit_id, what valid ranges exist, or any constraints beyond being an integer. Minimal added meaning.

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 '让单位原地驻守(hold position)' clearly states a specific action on a specific resource: making a unit stay in place. It distinguishes the tool from move, attack, and gather by the explicit 'hold position' phrase. However, it doesn't clarify how 'hold' differs from 'stop' — both involve halting a unit — so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use hold versus stop, move, or attack, and no preconditions or alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that it is a unit command, but there is no explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.

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