bpb_get_star_slots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does signal a read (读取) plus a detailed breakdown of the return payload — valuable because no output schema exists. However, it omits preconditions (must an item actually be placed, which phase/edit mode), error behavior for an unknown item_id, and whether the query mutates anything, which for an annotation-free tool are meaningful gaps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return-field enumeration; no filler sentences. The field list is dense (direction codes, nested socket fields) but each element earns its place since no output schema exists to carry it.

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 no annotations and no output schema, describing the return shape in detail (affected_cells by direction, current_affected_items, extension_cells, sockets fields) is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. Missing only the preconditions/error semantics that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% (the single item_id parameter is documented as '可选物品实例 id'), and the description adds meaning on top by stating that supplying it restricts the result to exactly one item. That is a real semantic addition beyond the schema, though scope stays narrow with only one parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair (读取星位/受影响格与宝石插槽) and enumerates the exact data returned, which lets an agent tell it apart from the mutating siblings bpb_socket_gem/bpb_unsocket_gem. It does not explicitly name an alternative read tool such as bpb_get_backpack, so sibling routing relies on the reader's inference.

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?

'可选 item_id 只查一件' implies the scoping decision (query all placed items vs. narrow to one), which is a real usage hint. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of which phase or edit mode the tool is valid in, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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