List pending hard-drive choices in a Satisfactory save to see available rewards and remaining rerolls before selecting.
The pending hard-drive choices stored in the save, with rerolls left.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | ||
| as_of | No | pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer | |
| limit | No | max rows (hard cap 25) | |
| world | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / as_ofAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "pin to one world state: a sav:… token from an earlier answer",
+ "title": "As Of"
+}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 25,
+ "description": "max rows (hard cap 25)",
+ "maximum": 25,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "title": "Limit",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "title": "Offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose read-only status, pagination behavior, side effects, or return format, leaving the agent to assume a safe read.
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?
One terse sentence fragment, no wasted words, but its extreme brevity borders on under-specification.
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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits crucial usage and parameter context, leaving significant gaps.
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 40% (only as_of and limit have descriptions). The description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 is a noun phrase that restates the tool name, adding only 'with rerolls left' and 'stored in the save'. It does not state a verb or distinguish from the sibling tool advise_hard_drive_pick.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.