spell_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does so: it declares read-only, no Lua execution, no unit conversion, and discloses the automatic resolution steps (following related_projectiles, merging one <Base> layer, materials.xml particle colors, SpriteComponent atlas frames). It also names what is deliberately excluded (texture pixels, audio samples, engine formulas), which sets accurate expectations.

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 aggregation summary, then behavior/limits, then exclusions. No filler sentence; each line (auto-follow rules, read-only constraints, not_available contents) adds distinct, useful 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers aggregation semantics plus limitations well. The one shortfall is the missing explanation of what spell_id must be, which the agent needs before calling.

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% and the single parameter 'spell_id' is left completely undocumented. The description never says whether this is an internal ID, a name, a path, or its expected format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (一次性汇总 / one-shot aggregation) and resource (spell data), then enumerates exactly which sub-parts are bundled: card fields, projectile entity, effects, and sound. That scope makes it clearly distinguishable from the plain 'spell' sibling without opening either 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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is the one-call way to get a full spell picture rather than chaining 'spell', 'entity' and 'read_xml'. There is no explicit when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-an-alternative routing, and no prerequisites named.

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