Search SkyBlock Storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by saying items are decoded and merged across locations and that output is grouped counts plus sack totals. However, it omits the cost/latency character of a full NBT decode, auth needs, or that large-section output is a risk, leaving moderate gaps.

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 densely packed sentences with the actor/action front-loaded and the return shape last. No filler, though the container enumeration could be tightened since sectionTypes already lists these values.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully sketches the return shape (grouped counts, sack totals, optional per-section detail), which is genuinely needed. Against a 17-parameter surface with zero required params and no enums, though, it gives no guidance on the uuid/username/profileId interplay or on scoping the potentially large decode.

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 76%, above the baseline threshold, so the schema carries most parameter meaning; the description adds essentially none. Several tuning parameters (itemLimit, maxSections, includeItemDetails, maxItemsPerSection) are undocumented in both schema and description, so this is adequate but not compensatory.

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?

Names a specific action (decode and merge items) and enumerates the resources involved: backpacks, ender chest, personal vault, sacks, bags, and inventory. An agent can tell this is a storage-aggregation tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling skyblock_inventory, whose scope overlaps heavily with this enumeration.

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 states capability but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never says when to prefer skyblock_storage over skyblock_inventory or skyblock_networth, which is the central routing decision for this family of tools.

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