get_buildings_info

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

The description carries the full burden since no annotations are provided. 'View' implies a read-only operation, and the note that costs are read live from game config adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or return-shape behavior beyond this.

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 sentence with the main action front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly redundant ('all building types' and 'what each building does'), but it remains efficient and readable.

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 parameter-free read-only tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the key behavioral nuance of reading live game config. It could mention the output format or whether placement rules are detailed in the response, but it is largely complete for selecting and conceptualizing the call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description is not required to clarify inputs the schema cannot convey.

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 clearly states a view operation over building information: types, costs, effects, and placement rules. This is distinct from sibling tools that act on buildings (place_building, repair_building, demolish_building).

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 context for use is clear: this tool is for inspecting building data before acting on buildings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only framing and action-oriented siblings make the intended usage obvious.

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