technology

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '已研究科技。' only expresses a vague state of having researched technology; it does not state whether the tool mutates state, reads data, requires permissions, or what side effects may occur.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single opaque sentence does not front-load any useful information and spends its only words on a vague restatement of the tool name.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the overall definition remains incomplete: the purpose is unclear, the single parameter is undocumented, and there is no differentiation from at least eighteen sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably infer what data will be returned or how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 default value of 'player'. The agent receives no explanation of how the parameter affects the result, which is especially important since the parameter is optional and unnamed in the 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 '已研究科技。' is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name 'technology' and offers no clear verb or resource. It does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings, and it is unclear whether it returns researched technologies, triggers research, or displays a tech tree.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'country', 'analyze_situation', or 'overview'. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting it.

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