bpb_get_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: in-combat calls return inventory_available=false and do not touch backpack/shop. It further explains field semantics (item.fusion_locked/item.locked, item.is_gem/sockets, id reuse downstream) that an agent cannot infer. Missing only an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement and any latency or cost characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a field enumeration followed by phase gating and id-usage notes — a sensible ordering with no filler. The single dense sentence is long and would read better as a short bulleted field list, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must shoulder the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly: it names every returned section, explains the in-combat degraded mode, and documents field-level meanings (ids, fusion locks, gem sockets). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description instead spends its space on return-value semantics, which is the right allocation here.

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+resource ("获取当前完整状态") and then enumerates the exact contents: phase, class, turn, retries, gold, wins/total_wins, survival, shop stock and prices, reserves, refresh cost, 9x7 backpack grid, storage, skip-availability. This distinguishes it cleanly from narrower siblings like bpb_get_backpack, bpb_get_phase and bpb_get_stamina without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 clear phase-dependent guidance: during battle only a summary is returned and backpack/shop are untouched, and full state should be re-read after settlement back in shop. It also tells the agent the returned ids feed later buy/place/rotate/store/reserve/socket calls. It stops short of naming when to prefer a narrower sibling (e.g. bpb_get_backpack or bpb_get_phase) instead.

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