Read current Balatro state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it should be invoked before every action and the decision view returns a state_token plus valid indices, going beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and timing, the second describes the return contents.

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 simple tool, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context: when to call it, what the decision view returns, and that full retains all upstream fields. It doesn't detail the full output structure, but there's no output schema and the description adequately compensates for typical use.

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?

The schema fully describes the 'view' parameter (100% coverage), and the description enriches it by explaining that 'decision' returns state_token and all valid 0-based indices, while 'full' retains upstream fields. This adds practical meaning beyond the enum names.

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 clearly states the tool reads the latest state and explicitly says to call before each action. It also specifies that the decision view returns state_token and valid 0-based indices, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like balatro_available_actions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance via '每次动作前调用' (call before every action), which is strong contextual direction. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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