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 implies a mutation action ('spawn') but doesn't state what resources are consumed, whether permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. The colony type details add some context but don't cover broader behavioral traits like side effects or response format.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of colony types with clear, terse explanations. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (creating a colony with type variations), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is partially complete. It covers the parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details, leaving gaps for an agent to infer missing information.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning by explaining the 'colony_type' parameter with four options and their compositions (e.g., 'standard: scout, worker, worker, memory'), which goes beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it doesn't specify if these are the only valid values or provide format details.

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 ('spawn a new bug colony') and resource ('bug colony'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_colonies' or 'dissolve_colony' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'quick_colony' or other swarm-related tools that might also create colonies, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quick_colony' or 'api_swarm', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lists colony types but doesn't explain when to choose one over another in practical terms, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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