List currently legal Balatro actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds context beyond this: it lists both allowed and disallowed operations, not just a whitelist, and it returns the latest state_token. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations not present in the structured fields.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action (list), the subject (allowed/disallowed write operations), the conditions (stage, resources, index range), and the return value (state_token). Every element is necessary, with zero waste or fluff.

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 simple, parameterless query tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns: a list of legal/illegal write operations and a state_token. It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., plain names vs. structured objects), but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to document, the description is not expected to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出' / lists), identifies the resource ('允许及不允许的写操作' / allowed and disallowed write operations), and states the criteria (current stage, resources, index range). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools like balatro_discard_cards or balatro_play_cards, which perform actions rather than list them.

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 implies usage context: it is relevant to the current stage, resources, and index range, and it returns a state_token. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like balatro_get_state, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., 'use this before any action to verify legality'). Guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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