processing_planner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions relying on held crops and machines owned but does not disclose limitations, dependencies (e.g., save configuration), or the content of the referenced 'note' with multipliers/cycle-day caveats.

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 short sentence, but its structure is somewhat cryptic with backtick formatting and missing explanation of the note. It is concise but at the cost of clarity.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description omits prerequisites (e.g., save configuration) and does not explain the note's caveats, leaving the tool's overall context incomplete for an agent.

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 100%, but the description adds no additional meaning to parameters like artisan, extra_jars, extra_kegs, or save_path. Only 'days' is mentioned, which is already in the schema. Description fails to augment the schema.

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 calculates kegs/jars needed and estimated gross gold from held crops and machines owned, distinct from siblings like processing or processing_value by focusing on planning to clear a backlog.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like processing or processing_value. The reference to a 'note' for caveats is mentioned but not provided, leaving usage context incomplete.

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