research_technology

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a pre-submission requirement check and the queueing semantics, which are non-obvious behaviors. It omits cost/resource consumption, whether the queue entry can be cancelled, and what a failed check looks like.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the action and scope come first, then the validation note, then the phase-change caveat. The final clause ('then observe current_research and the resulting phase') is slightly cryptic and reads as a fragment, costing a point.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and validation but leaves out outcome details an agent needs: whether resources are committed immediately, whether research is timed, and how failure is surfaced.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It constrains 'technology' to values advertised by the building's research properties, which adds real meaning, but 'building_id' is only obliquely implied by 'your completed building' and never explained (ownership, validity, multi-building cases).

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Queue one technology') plus a scoping constraint ('advertised by your completed building's research properties'), which distinguishes it from production/unit siblings like train_units or cancel_production. The purpose is clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any named alternative.

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?

Provides useful sequencing guidance for the phase-change case ('build prerequisites first, then observe current_research'). However it gives no when-not guidance, no indication of what to do if requirements fail, and no explicit routing to a sibling tool.

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