explain_byproducts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral rules: byproducts with no consumer make a plan infeasible, only solids can be sunk, fluids must be consumed exactly or packaged first, and recipes are split into world-unlocked vs not. This provides meaningful insight beyond a simple read-only hint, though it does not mention return format or side effects.

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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. The second paragraph efficiently explains the underlying equality constraint and solids/fluids distinction. The third paragraph gives a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the core scenario and a key behavioral nuance (solids vs fluids), which is helpful. However, with 11 parameters and no output schema, it leaves gaps: most parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and the return format is not described. It is adequate for understanding the main purpose but not fully complete for a complex tool.

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 only 9% (just 'limit'). The description explains only one parameter, 'item', with 'Pass item to focus on one byproduct instead of the whole plan.' The remaining 10 parameters (save, world, exports, sources, objective, etc.) are left entirely unexplained, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 explains which byproducts stall a plan and what can legally consume them. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_upstream or alternates_for_item, which focus on tracing or alternatives rather than plan feasibility and legal consumption.

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 establishes a clear usage context: when a plan is infeasible due to a byproduct with no consumer. It also suggests using the 'item' parameter to focus on a single byproduct. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full guidance.

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