start_research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'queue' which implies an asynchronous action, but it doesn't explain whether the research starts immediately, whether it can be canceled (though 'job_cancel' exists as a sibling), whether it consumes resources, or what the response looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Queue') and the object ('a technology'). However, it's so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool has one required parameter, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain how to specify the technology, what happens after queueing, or how this relates to the broader research workflow. The output schema exists but the description doesn't set expectations for what the tool returns. A more complete description would cover prerequisites and follow-up actions.

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 the single 'technology' parameter. The description mentions 'a technology' but doesn't clarify what format the technology string should take (e.g., exact name, ID, display name), where to find valid values, or whether it's case-sensitive. This is a meaningful gap for a single-parameter 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 'Queue a technology for research for your force' states a specific verb ('queue') and resource ('technology'), and the context of 'for your force' adds some scope. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'set_recipe' or 'craft_items' that also involve queueing or production actions, and the phrase 'for your force' is somewhat vague about what that means in practice.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having a research lab, enough resources), nor does it contrast with related tools like 'set_recipe' or 'craft_items'. The only implied usage is that it's for research-related actions, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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