cy_battleitems_multi_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. It mentions the batch size limit (30 items), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key constraint (30-item limit). There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and batch limit but omits critical details like return format, error conditions, or how results are structured. For a tool that retrieves multiple items, more context on output behavior is needed 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'itemIds' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond implying batch retrieval. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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: '여러 아이템의 상세 정보를 한 번에 조회합니다' (retrieves detailed information for multiple items at once). It specifies the verb '조회합니다' (retrieve/look up) and resource '아이템의 상세 정보' (detailed item information), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cy_battleitems_get (which likely retrieves single items).

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 mentions a limit of 30 items but does not specify scenarios where batch retrieval is preferred over single-item lookups (e.g., cy_battleitems_get) or search operations (e.g., cy_battleitems_search). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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