bgi_collect_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it actually launches BetterGI and takes over game input, that confirm=true is mandatory to fire, that dry_run only prepares, and that it will attempt to restore/minimize-and-foreground the game window. It omits failure/timeout behavior for the milestone polling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Despite being one long sentence with arrow separators, the flow is front-loaded with the core purpose and the side-effect/confirm caveat comes last. Little wasted text; only the redundant dry_run restatement could be trimmed.

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 mutating orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: side effects on the game, the confirm gate, the dry-run escape hatch, and window-state prerequisites. Missing only what the milestone poll returns or how long it waits before giving up.

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%, so all five parameters (force, confirm, dry_run, material, overwrite) are already documented with semantics including the <1080p warning. The description only echoes confirm and dry_run, adding no format, defaults, or interaction rules beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 gives a concrete verb chain (ensure route/config group → prepare window → trigger config group → poll to milestone) rather than restating the name, so an agent knows this is an end-to-end 'one-shot' collector. It never names a sibling (e.g. bgi_collect_material, bgi_run_groups) to contrast with, so differentiation is only implied by '一步到位入口'.

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?

Usage context is implied ('说一句就采集' one-step entry) and the confirm=true gate plus dry_run preparation mode are stated, giving some when-to-use signal. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives — nothing tells the agent why it would pick this over bgi_collect_material or bgi_run_groups.

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