Handles in-game AFK human-verification popups when long idle triggers them. Returns guidance to click the check using perceive_game coordinates and game_action.
处理游戏内的 AFK 人机验证弹窗。
用途：长时间挂机触发验证时调用。 入参：无。 返回：操作指引文本。 下一步：结合 perceive_game 返回的弹窗坐标，用 game_action(move) 完成点击验证。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns operation guidance text and that the actual click is done via game_action(move), implying this tool does not click itself, but it omits permissions, side effects, and failure behavior.
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?
Four short lines, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, parameters, return, and next step. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, return type, and the next-step workflow. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states '入参：无', matching the empty input schema.
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?
States a specific verb '处理' and resource '游戏内的 AFK 人机验证弹窗', plus the long-idle trigger context. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond mentioning perceive_game and game_action as next steps.
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?
Explicitly says when to call it: when long idle triggers verification. It also provides a clear next-step workflow with perceive_game and game_action(move), but gives no when-not guidance or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.