factory_sites

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the detail that buildings are 'built' and clustered into sites, ordered 'largest first', but it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or how filtering such as 'save' and 'world' works. This is insufficient given zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely short ('Built production buildings clustered into sites, largest first.'), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information and does not read as a complete instruction, making it similar to the 'under-specification' case in the calibration examples.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It does not mention return format, how 'sites' are represented, the effect of 'save' or 'world' filters, or any side effects. For a tool with three parameters, this is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 33%, with only 'limit' having a description. The description does not explain the 'save' and 'world' parameters, nor does it add any meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without necessary parameter context.

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 phrase 'Built production buildings clustered into sites' is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', making the action ambiguous. It does convey the data scope (production buildings, sites) and ordering ('largest first'), which is more informative than a tautology, but it still fails to clearly state what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, and does not reference sibling tools such as 'factory_map' or 'list_factories'. This gives the agent no context for selecting this tool.

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