list_buildables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output content (id, cost, hp, c4, stack limit, footprint) and the filter options, so an agent knows what to expect. It does not mention edge behaviors like exact-match filtering or ordering, but 'List' clearly conveys a non-mutating operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output fields, followed by filter instructions. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned and what filter options exist. It names the return fields and the valid kinds, making the tool callable without further research.

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 input schema only declares 'kind' as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by enumerating the allowed kind values, making the parameter's meaning and options explicit.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List placeable pieces with id, cost, hp, c4, stack limit and footprint.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling describe_buildable by indicating a plural listing of pieces with specific fields, versus a singular detailed inspection.

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 provides clear context for use: listing all buildables or filtering by a kind value. It names valid kinds ('core, fortification, defence, support, vehicle, structure'), enabling selection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, which prevents a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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