Retrieve a country's key statistics: date, rank, GDP, prestige, standard of living, population, treasury, and great power list from a Victoria 3 save.
国家总览：日期、等级、GDP、威望、生活水平、人口、金库与列强名单。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | player |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only lists returned fields and never states that the operation is read-only or what side effects, if any, it has. It adds useful content about the field set, but not enough about behavior, defaults, or guarantees.
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 a single sentence with a clean colon and a comma-separated field list. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the field list is a decent starting point. However, usage guidelines and behavioral transparency are missing, so an agent cannot tell whether the call is safe, what country is targeted by default, or when to prefer a sibling tool.
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 never mentions the 'country' parameter or its 'player' default. Only the word '国家' hints at the parameter's subject, so the description does little to compensate for the schema 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 names the resource (country) and enumerates the exact fields returned: date, rank, GDP, prestige, living standard, population, treasury, and great powers. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'overview' plus the field list clearly conveys a read-only summary, and the aggregated scope distinguishes it from specialized siblings like economy or politics.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as country, economy, rankings, or analyze_situation. The intended niche as a high-level summary is implied by the name and field list, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.