build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does warn that coordinates are tile-based, which prevents a common misuse, and it shows the expected argument order. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, resource costs, or failure behavior for a mutating game action, leaving important behavioral traits undefined.

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 concise: one action sentence, one coordinate-system warning, and a short example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes value. It could be slightly more efficient by folding the coordinate note into the example, but it is well-structured for its size.

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 tool with four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: no valid building_type values, no indication of where worker_id comes from, no mention of preconditions or results of the build action. The example helps but does not sufficiently round out the context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly across situations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that tile_x and tile_y are tile positions and provides an example mapping all four parameters to values, which helps infer parameter order and types. Yet it does not explain the valid range or format of worker_id, nor enumerate or describe acceptable building_type strings, leaving those parameters under-specified.

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 tool's action: have a specified worker build a building at tile coordinates, with an explicit example. The verb '建造' (build) and resource '建筑' (building) make the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like train, move, or attack. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage through an example call and clarifies that coordinates are TilePosition, not pixels. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions such as worker availability or resource requirements. Usage guidance is present only implicitly.

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