cpu_get_building

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

With no annotations, the description assumes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares 'Read-only' and 'No session needed', and it details the three plan modes plus the distinction between build inputs and recipe inputs, giving an unusually complete picture of what a call returns.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently organized by labeled plan categories (CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, LIFECYCLE). The dense detail is warranted because the tool has no output schema and the description must carry the return-value semantics.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is complete: it gives the prerequisite for obtaining the type, explains the three plan groups and their subcategories, clarifies cost timing, and states read-only and session requirements. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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 schema already documents buildingType with 100% coverage, including an example ('steel_mill') and the get_game_config source. The description reinforces that the parameter is the catalog type but adds no new format, constraints, or examples beyond 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 opening line 'One building of the catalog as a card' clearly identifies the resource and the operation: retrieve a single catalog entry. It also names the input source via cpu_get_game_config, which helps distinguish it from lookup/search sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with cpu_find_buildings.

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 states that the input is the catalog type 'as cpu_get_game_config lists it', giving a clear prerequisite for calling the tool. It also sets expectations that the result is organized into construction, operation, and lifecycle plans, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling get/list tools.

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