rig_facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing about whether the operation reads or mutates state, its permissions, side effects, or output. The phrase 'on a dump' adds no actionable behavioral context.

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 single sentence fragment is short but under-specified rather than concise; it is a cryptic noun phrase with no front-loaded action. Brevity here reflects missing information, not efficient 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?

For a two-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent has no basis for constructing a correct call.

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 for two undocumented required parameters. It never explains what 'weapon' or 'obj' are, their formats, or valid values; 'the weapon spec's facts' only loosely gestures at the weapon parameter.

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 names a resource ('the weapon spec's facts') but supplies no verb and lists cryptic attributes ('order, side, below, in') that an agent cannot map to an action. It does not distinguish this tool from rig_* or spec_* siblings, so an agent cannot tell what operation is actually performed.

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?

There is no indication of when to use rig_facts versus rig_pieces, rig_align, spec_read, or any other sibling. No preconditions, no alternatives, and no context are given.

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