machines

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return structure (grouped by type, counts, state ready/working/idle) and exclusions. It is read-only in nature. Could mention if machines in all locations are included, but 'every placed processing machine' is sufficiently clear.

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?

Description is concise with two clear parts: inventory content and usage differentiation. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 no output schema and low complexity (1 param), description covers purpose, exclusions, and sibling differentiation. It doesn't detail exact return format but mentions grouping and state fields, which is adequate for a list-like 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter `save_path`. The description repeats the same information from the schema ('leave empty to use configured save'), adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is an inventory of processing machines grouped by type with counts and state, and specifies excluded items (chests and decorative craftables). It directly addresses the query 'what/how many machines do I have', showing a specific verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('answer what/how many machines do I have') and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'machines_ready' by noting the latter shows only machines ready to collect. Also specifies exclusions, reducing ambiguity.

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