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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the max 12 and allowed types, which is useful. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., planet ownership), side effects, or behavior when the limit is reached, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently communicates the core action, the limit, and the valid options without any waste.

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?

While the purpose and allowed types are clear, the lack of parameter guidance, usage instructions, and side-effect disclosure makes it incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It needs more context to be reliably invoked.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explicitly map the listed structure types to the 'type' parameter, nor explain 'name' or 'api_key'. The list of types provides some hints but not explicit parameter semantics.

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 identifies the action (build) and resource (structure on your planet), lists the valid structure types, and distinguishes from sibling tools like terraform. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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?

It gives clear context that this tool is for building structures, with a limit of 12, and the structure types are enumerated. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like terraform or mention exclusions, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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