spell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real traits: it parses source text only, never executes Lua, and deliberately makes no trade-offs, returning fields plus line-number ranges per version. That tells the agent the output is deterministic and raw. It still omits error behavior (e.g. unknown spell_id) and the meaning of the table cap.

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?

Three short clauses, purpose front-loaded, then the parsing constraint, then the follow-up routing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and the description adequately covers the parsing model and the hand-off to read_text. It remains incomplete on the undocumented max_tables parameter and on what happens when a spell id is absent or appears in fewer tables than the cap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not name either parameter. spell_id is inferable from '把一个法术…的条目', but max_tables is never mentioned or explained, leaving the default-10 cap opaque.

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 and resource: it returns one spell's entries side-by-side across every version table in scripts/gun/gun_actions*.lua. That is far more precise than the bare name 'spell'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool spell_bundle, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from this text alone.

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 gives one clear routing rule: when the function body is needed, follow up with read_text on the reported line ranges. That is useful implied usage guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over spell_bundle or entity, and no exclusion conditions.

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