research

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a mutation ("queue a technology") without saying what is queued, whether the queue is additive or replacing, what force is affected, or what permissions/side effects apply. The dual read/write nature is the most important thing to disclose and it is left ambiguous.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no padding, but the brevity comes at the cost of ambiguity rather than being achieved through precision. The read portion is front-loaded, which is the right 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with two distinct modes and two undocumented parameters, the description omits the one thing an agent needs: how to invoke the optional queue behavior. It is adequate only for the read path.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is named in the description. "force" (default "player") and "start" (nullable string) are completely unexplained, and the description's mention of queueing does not map onto either name, so the agent must guess which field selects a technology.

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?

"Read research and available technologies" gives a verb and resource, but the second clause "optionally queue a technology normally" is opaque — "normally" is undefined and no parameter named technology exists in the schema. An agent cannot tell precisely what state is read or how a queue action is triggered.

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 guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as list_prototypes, list_recipes, or get_world, which all surface game data. The read-vs-queue choice is presented as an option with no condition that selects it.

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