ready_to_collect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists the items checked, without explaining whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies game state, or any other behavioral traits like required permissions or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely runs a complex check.

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 sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or separation of ideas that could improve readability for an AI agent.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what resources are checked. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., a list of item names) or any other return details, leaving some ambiguity for the 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% with a single parameter 'save_path' whose description is thorough. The tool description adds no additional information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

Description clearly specifies the tool's function: listing ready-to-collect items from machines and harvestable crops. It uses specific verbs ('collect' and 'harvest') and enumerates resource types (kegs, jars, mayo, cheese, tappers, mushroom boxes, crab pots, tilled soil crops). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'machines' or 'crop_planner' that may have overlapping but distinct purposes.

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 the tool should be used to check what is currently ready to collect or harvest, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'machines' for machine status or 'overview' for general farm status. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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