Analyze stage

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that observations are facts-only and never recommendations, and explains depth scaling. This adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences: first covering purpose and output structure, second covering depth and server mixing. It is front-loaded and concise, though some detail like output rule_id could be more prominent.

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?

The description covers output structure (rule_id, evidence, confidence, limitations) and depth levels in detail. However, it does not clarify precedence between game_id and stage_code when both are provided, or the exact mapping of server to stage region. Overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: depth variants with detailed examples, server exclusivity (en/cn never mixed), and usage of stage_code (by region+code) and game_id. Examples like '4-4' clarify input format.

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 analyzes an Arknights stage into deterministic, evidence-backed threat observations. The verb 'Analyze' is specific, and the resource 'Arknights stage' is distinct from sibling tools that focus on data retrieval or search.

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 implies usage when threat observations are needed, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_stage or search_stages. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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