bpb_refresh_shop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the key trait that this is a resource-consuming mutation and where the price lives. It omits what happens to the existing shop stock, whether the call fails or is a no-op when gold is insufficient, and what the agent receives back.

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?

One parenthetical sentence with zero waste: the action, the cost, and the exact state path for the cost are front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema or padding the text.

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-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the cost angle but leaves the agent guessing about failure modes (insufficient gold) and the return payload. A short clause on what changes in the shop after the call would close the gap.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The single sentence correctly focuses on the side effect rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 gives a specific verb ('刷新' / refresh) and resource ('商店' / shop), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like bpb_buy_item or bpb_sell_item. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 discloses the precondition (costs gold) and points at state.shop.reroll_cost for the price, which is useful context for deciding to call it. However, it never states when to refresh vs. when not to (e.g. whether an unaffordable call errors or no-ops), nor does it reference any alternative tool.

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