mam_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and exceeds it. It discloses a subtle behavioral detail: production amplification has no save flag and is 'derived from the purchased-schematic set instead,' while overclocking is recorded as `mIsBuildingOverclockUnlocked`. It also explains that capability rows are marked LOCKS to distinguish gates from recipe additions, giving the agent meaningful insight into how results are computed.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary, then provides explanatory detail. The technical note about save flags is somewhat lengthy but earns its place because it clarifies non-obvious derivation logic. Overall, it is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though it could be tightened without losing essential context.

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?

The tool is complex and has no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It does so conceptually ('what is left, what it costs, and what you can afford right now') and adds domain-specific context about LOCKS and derived capabilities. It does not describe exact row structure or return fields, but given the rich explanatory detail, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and likely output shape.

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 parameter-level meaning beyond the input schema. With 60% schema description coverage, the schema already documents `limit`, `search`, and `status`, but `save` and `world` remain unexplained both in schema and description. The description focuses on domain concepts and does not help the agent understand how to pass parameters like `save` or `world`.

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 opens with a clear scope statement: 'MAM research: what is left, what it costs, and what you can afford right now.' It distinguishes this tool from recipe-oriented tools by emphasizing that the MAM holds CAPABILITIES 'as opposed to recipes' and that capability rows are marked LOCKS. However, it lacks a direct action verb like 'list' or 'show,' so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when investigating MAM capabilities rather than recipes, specifically noting which research costs and affordability are relevant. It implicitly contrasts with recipe-focused siblings by explaining the capability-vs-recipe distinction, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or 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.