Get province-level details for a country from a Victoria 3 save, including name, integration, infrastructure, and population. Use it to assess regional development and identify areas needing investment.
该国省份：名称、整合度、基础设施、人口。
| 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?
Since annotations are absent, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the output categories, but it does not disclose default-country behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or any other behavioral traits beyond the listed fields.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is terse but every word contributes to indicating what the tool returns.
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 simple lookup with an output schema present, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and key output fields. However, without annotations or parameter semantics, it leaves notable gaps around default behavior, accepted country identifiers, and how this tool relates to siblings.
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 only parameter is 'country' with a default of 'player'. The description refers obliquely to '该国' but never explains acceptable country values or that omitting the parameter selects the player country, leaving the parameter semantics mostly to inference.
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 identifies the resource (the country's provinces) and enumerates the returned fields: name, integration, infrastructure, and population. This makes the tool's purpose understandable and distinguishes it from siblings like list_countries or country, although no explicit verb is used.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as country, overview, or list_countries, and it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is only implied by '该国省份'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.