Agent Farm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive action ('dissolve') and mentions 'free resources', but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe usage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('dissolve a colony') and adds a brief outcome ('free resources'). Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'free resources' means, the return value, error conditions, or dependencies. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full context and implications of using the tool.

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 description does not mention parameters, but with only one parameter ('colony_id') and 0% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. Since there are zero parameters described in the schema, the description's lack of parameter info is acceptable, as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps. The single parameter is self-evident from the context of dissolving a colony.

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 action ('dissolve') and the resource ('a colony'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_colonies' or 'colony_status' by being a destructive operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'free resources' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the exact outcome.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for terminating colonies, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the colony must be idle), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'cleanup_idle' or 'spawn_colony'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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