getMapPlayerRetention

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only repeats the required credentials already present in the schema, and omits return format, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects, leaving agents uninformed for a data retrieval operation.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action. However, it omits crucial context like return values and usage scenarios, making the brevity borderline under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and five required parameters, the description should explain purpose and behavior more thoroughly. It fails to define 'retention', document return values, or clarify distinctions from sibling tools, making it incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 100%, with each parameter having a label and date examples. The description's mention of 'Token, 用户请求头, 地图ID' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 uses the verb '获取' (get) with a specific resource '神岛平台用户地图玩家留存' (Shendao platform user map player retention), clearly identifying the tool's function. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the unique 'retention' concept differs from siblings like getMapPlayerStatList.

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 only lists prerequisites (Token, user request header, map ID) and gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than other map analytics tools. No exclusions, contexts, or alternative tool names are provided.

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