Choose an opened pack item

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds one behavioral constraint: the agent must not guess Tarot/Spectral target counts. But it does not say what gets consumed, what happens after the choice, or how expected_state_token is validated, so behavioral disclosure remains limited.

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 very short and contains no filler. However, the phrase '映射上游 pack {card, targets}' is cryptic and could be clearer; despite being brief, it sacrifices some clarity for compactness.

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?

Given the destructive annotation and lack of an output schema, the description does not fully explain the consequences of choosing an item or the expected return. It gives one important operational warning but otherwise relies on the title and schema, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by warning not to guess Tarot/Spectral target counts, clarifying that target_cards must be explicitly provided and should not be inferred. This is useful extra semantics for the target_cards parameter, while item_index and expected_state_token are already well described in the schema.

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 title clearly says 'Choose an opened pack item', but the description itself, '映射上游 pack {card, targets}', describes an internal mapping rather than explicitly stating the purpose. It is not as clear as a direct 'chooses the item at index N from the opened pack' and does not distinguish itself from skip_pack in the description.

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 includes '不猜测 Tarot/Spectral 目标数量', which implies the agent must provide exact target_cards when needed rather than inferring them. However, it gives no explicit 'use when' context, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternative actions like skip_pack.

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