Stocks

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral details: estimation assumptions (2 food/5 drink per dwarf per season), the wear scale (4-stage), and the error response when no fort is loaded. It also explains the count of citizens with no shoes, adding context beyond a simple output list.

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 somewhat verbose, especially the detailed explanation of the wear scale, but every sentence serves a purpose in clarifying output. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary assumptions and error handling, making it appropriately structured for the complexity.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major return elements (food/drink, critical materials, stock lists, clothing) and error behavior, leaving little ambiguity for an 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does add context about the output (days-of-supply, counts, clothing) that helps interpret the tool's behavior.

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 what the tool does: it reports food/drink days-of-supply, critical material counts, notably low/high stocks, and clothing wear status. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the focus on days-of-supply and worn clothing distinguishes it from siblings like 'stockpiles'.

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, such as monitoring food/drink supply, critical materials, and worn clothing as a stress source. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use cases are strongly implied.

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