build_planner

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses its behavior: it rolls down bars and tapper products, compares against save inventory, and outputs 'still_needed'. It explains the core calculations and what the answer covers, without omitting key traits.

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 a single, info-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and efficiently conveys the roll-down logic and inventory comparison. It could be broken into two sentences for readability, but every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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 planner with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output ('what do I need...') and the computational steps. It covers material breakdown, time estimates, and inventory comparison, meeting the needs of a complex planning tool.

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 input schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining how parameters are used: 'spec' defines machines, 'tappers' and 'furnaces' estimate gathering/smelting time, and 'save_path' defaults. This goes beyond bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Total materials to craft') and resource ('set of machines'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by detailing the roll-down logic to ore/coal/furnace-time and tapper-nights, plus inventory comparison.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need material breakdowns for crafting machines, including ore and tapper products. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools like 'processing_planner' provides differentiation.

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