get_latest_kl8

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('get latest results') without revealing any behavioral traits, such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 a single, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. While it states the purpose, it lacks context about behavioral aspects, output format, or how it fits among siblings. For a tool that likely returns data, more details on what 'latest results' entail would enhance completeness, especially without annotations or output schema.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain. In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing schema details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取快乐8最新开奖结果' translates to 'Get the latest Happy 8 lottery draw results.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('latest Happy 8 lottery draw results'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_3d' or 'get_latest_ssq,' which likely serve similar functions for different lottery types, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over 'get_historical_data' for past results or 'analyze_numbers' for analysis. With no usage instructions, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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