scavenge_building

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the call is asynchronous (squad travels then scavenges), whether the squad is occupied or at risk, what happens if the building is contested, or what the lease/request_id requirements imply. 'Enter' is the only hint at multi-step behavior, which is not enough for a state-mutating dispatch 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?

One short sentence, so it is not bloated, but the trailing clause 'that can be scavenged' is redundant restatement rather than useful constraint. The brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

With six parameters, five required including a control lease, no annotations, and no output schema, this is a complex mutating tool that needs more than a single sentence. The agent cannot tell the ordering constraints, the fate of the squad, or the effect of replace_orders, all of which matter for calling it correctly.

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 coverage is 33%: lease and session_id are documented in the schema (tokens from acquire_control and get_state), but squad_id, building_id, and especially replace_orders are undocumented. The description explains none of these, most notably replace_orders, whose meaning (overwrite an existing order?) is behaviorally significant and entirely opaque. The low coverage is only partly compensated.

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 names a verb plus resources (send a squad to enter and scavenge a building), so the core action is inferable. But the qualifier 'that can be scavenged' is circular and adds no discriminating information, and nothing distinguishes it from get_scavenge_plan, get_scavenge_progress, or cheat_scavenge_all. An agent knows roughly what happens but not what makes this tool the right entry point.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_scavenge_plan for previewing or get_scavenge_progress for monitoring. The required lease parameter implies prior acquire_control, but the description never states that sequencing requirement, leaving the agent to discover it from the schema.

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