rank_build_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the ranking methodology (untapped REACHABLE capacity, spread, distance, purity mix) and that raw components are shown for re-weighting, with the caveat that 'the single score is a starting point, not a verdict.' It does not explicitly state read-only nature or discuss potential side effects, but the description implies a non-destructive analysis tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a short explanation of the scoring approach, and a focused note on the sources parameter. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. While it explains the purpose, ranking logic, and sources parameter, it does not describe the return format, meaning of 'spread' and 'purity mix,' or the remaining parameters (top, save, world). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand what to expect and how to use the tool fully.

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 explains the 'sources' parameter (narrows search area using selectors from search_resource_nodes, omit for whole map). The other parameters (resource, top, save, world) are not described. With 5 parameters and only one explained, the description falls short of compensating for the missing 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 begins with 'Rank candidate fields for a new extraction site, best first,' which uses a specific verb ('rank') and resource ('candidate fields' for extraction sites). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_resource_nodes (which searches nodes) and propose_factories (which proposes factories) by focusing on scoring and ranking build sites.

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 the tool: when evaluating candidate fields for a new extraction site. It also explains that 'sources' narrows the search area using the same selectors as search_resource_nodes, and that omitting it searches the whole map. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for comparison.

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