list_buildings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: rows are marked HAVE or LOCKED against the save when readable, and it elaborates on the severe consequence for logistics planning. This goes beyond a simple listing description and provides actionable insight into output semantics.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides a crucial caveat with a concrete example of why it matters. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema or annotations, the description gives meaningful context: the building kinds, the HAVE/LOCKED status mechanism, and the logistics pitfall. It does not describe the exact return format or all parameter effects, but for a list tool, it adequately covers the most important behavioral nuance. The guidance is sufficient for many use cases.

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. It partially explains the 'kind' parameter by enumerating its possible values (production, extractor, generator, logistics). However, it does not explain the 'save' or 'world' parameters, leaving significant ambiguity about their roles. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 'Buildings by kind' is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement, though it does convey that the tool returns buildings categorized by kind. It lists the kinds (production, extractor, generator, logistics) but does not explicitly say 'list' or 'retrieve'. This somewhat distinguishes it from sibling list tools by focusing on building categories, but it lacks a clear verb and scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The second paragraph warns about the HAVE/LOCKED marking for logistics, implying the tool is useful for planning, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_factories or select_machines. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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