military

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses no behavior, side effects, return characteristics, or whether this is a read-only informational lookup. '编制' is a static label and gives the agent no basis to predict how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It saves tokens at the cost of all actionable content, and no sentence earns its place because no real information is provided.

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?

Even though the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the definition is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the military establishment output contains, how the country parameter affects it, or how this tool relates to the sibling detail tools.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'country' parameter or its 'player' default. The agent is left to infer parameter meaning entirely from the schema's property name and title, which is inadequate compensation for the missing description.

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 is a bare noun phrase, '陆军/海军编制' ('army/navy establishment'), which names a topic rather than an operation. It does not state what action the tool performs, such as retrieving, listing, or analyzing military organization, so an agent cannot tell what invoking it will do.

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 use this tool versus siblings like overview, analyze_situation, country, or other sector-specific tools. The description gives no context and names no alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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