cy_battleitems_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('조회합니다'), implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the key elements.

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 the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions '아이템 ID' (item ID), which aligns with the schema's parameter 'itemId' described as '아이템 ID.' With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: '아이템 ID로 아이템 상세 정보를 조회합니다' translates to 'Retrieve detailed item information by item ID.' This specifies the verb (retrieve/조회), resource (item/아이템), and scope (detailed information/상세 정보). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cy_battleitems_multi_get' or 'cy_battleitems_search,' which likely retrieve multiple items or search items respectively.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'cy_battleitems_multi_get' for multiple items or 'cy_battleitems_search' for searching, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a specific item ID. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly stated.

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