list_factories

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns named factories with standing quantities, implying a read-only list operation. However, it doesn't explain how the 'save' and 'world' parameters affect results or whether it reflects the current filtered state, which is minimal but not misleading for a simple list.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the purpose and output, though it omits details that would require additional length. This is appropriately concise for a tool of this apparent simplicity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output content but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain the optional parameters or the exact return structure. For a low-complexity tool, it's borderline adequate, but missing parameter semantics and usage alternatives prevent a higher score.

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 only hints at world context via 'this world' and does not explain the 'save' parameter or how the parameters interact. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the bare schema properties.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'factories' and adds distinguishing detail about tracking 'how much of each is still standing.' It conveys the tool's function effectively, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like factory_map or factory_health.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as factory_map or factory_query. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions—only the basic operation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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