pob_inspect_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The phrase 'без изменения сборки' ('without changing the build') usefully reinforces that this is a pure read next to mutating siblings like pob_equip_item, but no further behavior (auth, rate limits, output shape) is disclosed.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the constraint (raw or itemId) appears before the optional slot note. Terse but not wasteful.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the parameter one-of and slot context but leaves the return value entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot predict what an 'description' result looks like.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add key meaning: either raw or itemId is required (a one-of constraint the schema's empty required list cannot express), and slot supplies description context. It still does not clarify that raw is raw Lua text or how slot strings are formatted, so it is not fully compensating.

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 names the resource (Item/ItemsTab Lua) and states the scope ('compatible slots without changing the build'), which hints at a read-only inspection tool. But it opens with the noun 'Описание' rather than a specific verb and never says what the agent actually gets back (text? slot list?), so the agent must infer it differs from pob_compare_item or pob_equip_item.

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 only guidance is a parameter constraint ('Нужен raw либо itemId') and that 'slot задаёт контекст описания'. Nothing says when to choose this over pob_compare_item, pob_equip_item, or the other item-related siblings, and no exclusions are stated.

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