land_lineup_snapshot

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations with concrete operational details: 'At most ten logical GETs, including one bounded-memory full collection stream; no automatic pagination or per-card lookup loops,' plus limits like 'up to 200 owner deeds' and 'At most 100 matching cards; a larger selection is refused.' It also discloses non-atomicity ('Reads are not atomic') and that missing cards are not presented as ready to stake – all valuable behavioral context beyond the simple readOnlyHint flags.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: purpose, input constraints, operational limits, data fetched, output condition, and safety guarantee. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses precise, no-nonsense language. It is slightly longer than average but justified by the tool's multifaceted behavior.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is remarkably complete. It covers input selection rules, internal execution limits, what data is fetched, output shape ('estimator-ready baseline'), edge-case behavior (missing cards, non-atomic reads), and explicitly states that no stake changes occur. An agent would be well-equipped to call this tool without further context.

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 – and it does. It explains the interaction between plot_id/deed_uid ('Supply exactly one... or...'), differentiates candidate_uids vs candidate_card_detail_ids ('up to ten card detail IDs or twenty UIDs'), and adds semantic detail like 'current workers are always included.' It doesn't explicitly map 'player,' but that parameter is trivially self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource – 'Gather an explicit player's current Grain/Wood/Stone/Iron plot and selected candidate cards' – and explicitly ties it to the land_lineup_estimate sibling toolnovel. It also differentiates itself from stake-changing tools by noting 'No stake changes are performed,' making its role unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys its use as a preparatory step for land_lineup_estimate and imposes explicit input constraints ('Supply exactly one numeric/display plot_id or deed_uid,' 'Select up to ten card detail IDs or twenty UIDs'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when *not* to use it, but the reference to the estimator and the 'No stake changes' disambiguate it from stake-related siblings.

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