Burrows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses exact computation of tile_count (summed over assigned blocks, not bounding box), the 200-item cap on assigned_units with truncation flag, and the error case for no fort loaded. This is thorough and transparent for a read 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?

The description is detailed and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by field-by-field explanations and a brief note on the error response. While it is long, every sentence adds value given the lack of output schema and annotations. The parenthetical explanations are dense but informative, though slightly verbose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return object's fields, the precise meaning of tile_count, the assignment cap behavior, the relationship with civilian_alert, and the error case. This leaves no significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none, but it fully explains the output structure which is the only relevant aspect for an agent invoking this tool.

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 it returns the fort's burrows as facts, enumerating specific fields (id, name, tile_count, assigned_units, civilian_alert_linked). It distinguishes itself from the civilian_alert tool by explaining that civilian_alert reports the alert's own state, while this tool provides burrow data. The verb is implicit but the resource and scope are 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 provides context for when to use this tool versus civilian_alert, noting that civilian_alert reports the alert's own state and mentions it pairs with a toggling actuator. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this for burrow information' or provide exclusions. The relationship is implied rather than directly instructing the agent on selection.

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