project_cell

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: the call fails for occluded, off-screen, or stale cells. It does not describe the return format, but the rejection semantics are a meaningful addition beyond the annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and constraints following immediately. Every clause earns its place, though the terseness leaves some semantics unstated rather than being wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the conversion returns (screen pixels? normalized coordinates?) and it does not. Combined with 0% parameter coverage, the definition is workable but leaves clear gaps for a four-required-parameter tool.

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% for all four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It identifies x/y as map coordinates and stresses that session and seq are mandatory, but adds no format, range, or meaning for seq versus session. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: converting ('换算') visible map coordinates from the current observation. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like observe_state, read_changes, and health, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Gives prerequisites ('必须传入该次会话和序号') and rejection conditions (occluded, off-screen, stale), which implies it only works against a live observation. It never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer another approach, so usage is only implied.

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