get_scavenge_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the allocation strategy ('greedy', each squad gets its own nearest cluster) and the concrete return shape, which is valuable. However, it never states whether the call is read-only or whether it reserves/locks buildings, nor what happens when no clusters are in range or when requested squads don't exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the strategy, then the output contract, then the consuming tool. No filler and nothing an agent must scan past.

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 three-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the description does the key work of explaining what comes back (building_id sequences) and how to act on it. It falls short only on failure modes and on whether the returned plan is stable/refreshed between calls.

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 100%, so radius, per_squad, and squad_ids are already fully documented with defaults and bounds. The description only indirectly touches radius via 'nearest cluster' and per_squad via 'each squad', adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb (plan) and resource (scavenging), plus the concrete output form ('building_id sequences'). Naming scavenge_building as the executor distinguishes it from an execution tool; it does not explicitly differentiate itself from progress or mission-plan siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the plan 'can be executed with scavenge_building,' which tells the agent this is a pre-execution planning step. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., squads being idle), and no contrast with get_mission_plan or get_scavenge_progress.

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