factory_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool reports three independent signals rather than a single answer, and describes the strengths/limitations of each signal (e.g., power islands separate outposts but leave grown-together bases as a blob; foundation slabs are sharpest but ignore ground-built parts). This adds meaningful context about the tool's behavior and output semantics, though it does not describe the exact output format or any 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 moderately long but well-structured: a one-sentence summary, an explanation of the three signals, and guidance on handling disagreements. Every sentence adds substantive meaning, and the prose is readable. It could be slightly tighter, but it is not rambling or redundant.

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's complexity (three signals) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a solid conceptual foundation but omits practical details such as what the result rows look like, how 'show' filters work, what save/world mean, and how limit is applied. It explains the 'why' but not the 'how' of invocation, leaving the agent with partial context.

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 description adds no information about the tool's own parameters (save, show, limit, world). The schema describes show and limit, but save and world are undocumented, and the description does not compensate. It mentions selectors (product:, near:, slab:) that apply to name_factory, not to this tool, so it provides zero parameter guidance. With 50% schema coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 states that the tool reports proposed factories derived from three signals: power islands, belt components, and foundation slabs. It clearly conveys the resource and scope, and implicitly indicates a reporting/list function. However, the absence of an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' makes it slightly less direct than ideal, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as propose_factories, though it does mention name_factory.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when you want to see the three independent signals together, since none is right alone. It also explains how to handle disagreements by using name_factory with selectors (product:, near:, slab:). This gives clear context for choosing this tool over alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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