Lists local combat strategy files and predicts which strategy the automatic team-based selector will choose for a given team.
列出本机战斗策略（User\AutoFight***.txt），并可按队伍预测「根据队伍自动选择」会选中哪一份。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | 逗号分隔的队伍角色名，例如 "莉奈娅,哥伦比娅,千织,兹白" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the underlying filesystem scope and that a prediction mode exists, which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about read-only safety guarantees, how prediction is computed, or behavior on missing directories/empty teams.
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?
A single compact sentence with the primary listing behavior front-loaded and the optional prediction mentioned after it. Nothing 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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say what is returned (file names? paths? and what the prediction produces). It stops short of describing return shape or ordering, leaving an agent to guess the response format.
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% and already gives a comma-separated example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that providing team activates a prediction of which strategy the auto-select rule would choose, which the schema text alone does not convey.
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?
Concrete verb + resource: it lists local battle strategy files and states the exact glob (User\AutoFight\**\*.txt), plus an optional prediction mode. The resource is specific enough to separate it from siblings like bgi_list_groups or bgi_list_js_scripts, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
It gives clear usage context: call it to enumerate strategies, and supply a team when you want to know which one auto-select would pick. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.