analyze_factory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add useful context: it only considers explored ground, and it notes that missing-ingredient details are included only 'when detectable.' It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or whether it has side effects, which is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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 one front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Each problem category earns its place, and the 'when detectable' parenthetical is a useful precision rather than wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter analysis tool, the description covers the main behavioral constraints: explored ground, the full set of problem groupings, and the power summary. The output schema presumably covers the return shape, so the description is largely complete, though the radius parameter and explicit read-only status could be clarified.

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 only parameter, radius, is not mentioned in the description; 'in an area' hints at it but does not explain units, effect, or default behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for the missing parameter explanation and does not.

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 reports: machines in an explored area grouped by problem categories, plus a power summary. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like production_stats or scan_area, but the focus on problem-grouping makes the intent distinct.

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 that this tool is for diagnosing factory machine issues in an explored area, and the explored-ground caveat gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as inspect_entity, scan_area, or production_stats.

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