explain_weightExplains how the weight of a single event is calculated in a game narrative engine, helping designers understand event importance and narrative impact.
解释单个事件的权重计算
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that the tool explains a calculation; it does not state that it is read-only, whether it requires the event to exist, or what form the explanation takes.
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 short phrase with no padding and the key concept front-loaded, so it is concise. It is arguably over-terse given the zero documentation elsewhere.
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 parameterized tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what scope project_id imposes or what the explanation returns.
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%, yet the description never mentions event_id or the optional project_id, so neither parameter's meaning or format is clarified anywhere. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a clear verb ('explain') and a specific resource ('weight calculation of a single event'), which is more precise than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling compute_weights, which likely computes the same quantity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus compute_weights or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer solely from the word 'explain'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.