buildings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. This is a significant gap for an otherwise helpful description.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey content and usage. It is front-loaded with the resource and purpose, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: buildings, upgrades, capacities, and house levels. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it, though it could be slightly more detailed about the scope (e.g., all farm buildings).

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 provides a detailed description for the save_path parameter with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the tool's function: showing farm buildings, farmhouse upgrades, animal capacities, and house upgrade levels. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'build_planner' which focus on planning rather than current state.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for reasoning about what to build/upgrade next and checking animal capacity or house perks. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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