inject_hint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It says the tool only prints information and explicitly disclaims real injection into a live game, which prevents the agent from assuming side effects. It also flags a prerequisite (local path). It could add more detail about output format, but it is honest about its limitations.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, the key caveat, and the required condition. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema hint tool, the description is largely complete: it defines the output (printed fields/steps) and the precondition (local path). A minor gap is that 'local path' is not further specified, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the meaningful constraint that a local path is required, even though it is not exposed as a schema parameter, which helps an agent understand invocation context.

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 states a specific action ('打印' = print) and a concrete resource ('本地 inject 所需配置字段与步骤' = the configuration fields and steps needed for local inject). It also explicitly scopes the tool as a hint rather than an actual injection operation, which separates it from any sibling that might perform live injection.

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?

It clearly names the target use case (local inject configuration/steps) and adds a precondition ('需本机路径' = local path required) plus an exclusion ('不声称注入到实时游戏' = does not claim live-game injection). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the intended context is understandable.

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