Get Player Knowledge State

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing. '获取' implies a read, but there is no disclosure of permissions, whether missing IDs fall back to project-level state, or what the returned knowledge-state structure looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is efficient. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since the sentence does not carry the weight a 3-parameter, un-annotated tool requires.

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 annotations, no output schema, three undocumented-and-optional parameters, and an undefined result shape for 'knowledge state', the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer. It is inadequate for a query tool whose scope depends on how the three IDs interact.

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 0% and the description names no parameters. It gestures at scene/event concepts, but project_id is never mentioned, and the relationship between the two optional filters (event_id vs scene_id, both non-required) — whether they are alternatives or combined — is left entirely unresolved.

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 specific verb (获取/get) and resource (玩家已知事实 – player-known facts), scoped by the moment of reaching a scene/event. It is clearly interpretable, but it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings like check_knowledge or check_canon, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase '到达某场景/事件时' describes the semantics of the result rather than the conditions under which an agent should choose this tool over check_knowledge or simulate_run.

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