Mechanisms

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it distinguishes physical lever orientation from linked gate state, details the structure of linked_targets and state strings, explains truncation caps and the always-true totals, and includes the error response for no fort. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 a dense single paragraph, but every clause delivers necessary behavioral detail. It lacks visual structure like bullet points for scannability, but it front-loads the purpose and has no redundancy.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all major output fields, state semantics, truncation behavior, and error handling, leaving little ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters and instead focuses on output structure, which is appropriate. No undocumented parameters need compensation.

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 presents the fort's lever/pressure-plate wiring as factual data, and it explicitly says 'levers[] lists every lever' and 'pressure_plates[] lists every plate's linked_targets'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing specifically on mechanisms, and it even notes its pairing with pull_lever.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when players/AI forget which lever controls what, and before queueing a pull to check for pending jobs. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools for other fort information, so it lacks exclusions.

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