describe_buildable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does disclose the returned content areas and the acceptance of flexible identifiers, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe behavior for unknown or ambiguous inputs, so coverage is only partial.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and return contents, then covers input flexibility, which is an efficient and well-ordered structure.

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?

For a single-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what the tool returns and what to pass in. It could be more complete by noting not-found behavior or confirming read-only semantics, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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 provides no description for the required 'piece' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining that 'piece' accepts an id, label, or loose name and gives a concrete example ('hesco small'), making the parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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 that the tool returns full data for one piece and enumerates the contained information: boxes, socket positions and kinds. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with list_buildables, but 'one piece' versus listing all buildables is a meaningful implicit distinction.

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 conveys that this tool is for retrieving full data about a single buildable and that the identifier can be an id, label, or loose name. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_buildables, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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