find_land_vehicles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add useful context: it reads saves, includes unnamed experiments, counts only vehicle body components (not controller internals), and warns that wheel-based boats/aircraft can match and that it does not establish purpose or quality. This is strong behavioral context beyond the name, though it doesn't cover auth needs or performance.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence adds a distinct caveat (unnamed experiments, component-scope, false positives). No wasted words, though the caveats could be slightly more structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key behavioral quirks. But with 5 undocumented parameters and no annotations, it falls short of being complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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% and 5 parameters are undocumented. The description only explains the 'kind' parameter (wheeled/tracked/all) and implies filtering by saves, leaving limit, offset, search, and source completely undiscussed. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a verb (find) and resource (land vehicles) via the name, and the description clarifies it reads the player's saves for wheel/track examples. However, the purpose is somewhat muddled by the caveats about boats/aircraft and the mention of 'unnamed experiments', and it doesn't clearly distinguish itself from siblings like search_land_parts or list_designs.

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?

Implies usage by mentioning kind filtering and that wheel-based boats/aircraft can match, but it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_land_parts or analyze_land_vehicle. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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