factory_floors

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful method disclosure beyond them: floors are recovered by clustering foundation tops with no assumed pitch, sub-quarter-size decks are flagged minor, and platform indices are only stable within one save. That last caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral trap worth surfacing. It stops short of describing response payload or how pagination interacts with the index stability.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, leading with what the tool returns and then the default behavior and narrowing options. Slightly terse given the number of undiscussed parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description defines the domain-specific semantics (floors, minor decks, platform index) well but says nothing about what save/world/limit/offset control, and does not describe the row shape beyond "one row per platform." Adequate, with clear gaps the agent must resolve from the schema alone.

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?

With 43% schema coverage across 7 parameters, the description fills real gaps: it explains platform= as the index this tool prints, adds the stability caveat, and defines factory= as a name or single selector term. save, world, limit and offset are left entirely to the schema, which is where the coverage gap sits.

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?

"Floors of a foundation platform: how many decks and what stands on each" names the resource and the exact question it answers (deck count + contents per deck), which distinguishes it from factory_map, site_plan and factory_query. The verb is implicit and the phrasing is jargon-heavy, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It states the default shape (one row per platform, largest first) and two narrowing modes (platform= for one index, factory= for one platform answered floor by floor), which implies when to reach for it. It never names a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not condition, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over factory_map or site_plan.

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