Fryd - Your Garden Companion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (compatibility, neighbours) and data source attribution, going beyond the safety profile.

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 concise (about 3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence adds value.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's input, output, and related tools without over-explaining.

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 clear descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining that cropId parameters skip name search and that IDs come from specific tools, which helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 checks compatibility of two plants, returns good/neutral/bad, and lists good/bad neighbours. It distinguishes from siblings like get_plant_profile and search_crops by specifying its unique function.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and references siblings (search_crops, get_seasonal_calendar, get_plant_profile) for related tasks. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., 'Do not use for single plant details').

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: it returns a comprehensive profile, accepts either cropId or plantName, and gives attribution instructions. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first states purpose and outputs; the second adds usage context and attribution requirement. No wasted words, well-organized.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers input guidance (cropId vs plantName, locale), attribution, and references sibling tools. It is complete for the tool's complexity. Could mention any limits (e.g., rate limits) but not necessary.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of cropId (direct lookup, skipping name search), the default for locale, and the flexibility of plantName. It also references sibling tools for obtaining cropId, which is helpful.

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 looks up detailed plant information, listing specific fields (sowing, planting, harvest seasons, spacing, light/water/nutrient requirements, companion partners). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_crops and get_seasonal_calendar by accepting cropId from them for direct lookup.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for comprehensive plant profile) and how to use it (prefer cropId from search_crops or get_seasonal_calendar, or use plantName). It also instructs on attributing data to the Fryd database. It could be improved by stating when not to use it (e.g., if only companion info needed, use check_companion_planting).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: returns grouped lists with crop IDs, and includes attribution instructions. It does not contradict annotations.

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 paragraph with the main purpose upfront. It includes necessary details and attribution, but is slightly verbose. Still, every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity and that an output schema exists, the description covers all needed aspects: required month, optional parameters, output structure (grouped lists with crop IDs), and follow-up actions. It is complete for a read-only data retrieval 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the optional zone/region adjustment. No new parameter details.

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 'find out which plants can be sown, pre-cultivated, or harvested in a given month' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning get_plant_profile and check_companion_planting for further actions.

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 explains when to use (to get plants for a month with optional zone/region) and mentions alternatives (get_plant_profile, check_companion_planting). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds database size (3,000+ varieties) and return structure (IDs, descriptions, species/variety). No contradictions, and it supplements the annotations well.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second details return fields and downstream usage. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of a search tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, return structure, and integration with sibling tools. No gaps.

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 adequate descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, locale). The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 searches a plant database by name, returns matching crops with IDs, descriptions, and type (species/variety). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning downstream tools like get_plant_profile and check_companion_planting.

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 provides clear context on when to use (searching by name) and what to do with results (use IDs for other tools). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternatives, but the sibling tools are implied as different functions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context about extracting crop names, light conditions, and ground type from prompts, and mandates attribution. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and attribution is appended neatly.

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 presence of an output schema and good annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, extraction behavior, alternative tools, and user attribution. No gaps identified.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but it reinforces the meaning of cropNames, lightDemand, and groundType by mentioning they are extracted from the prompt.

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 searches Fryd garden planting plan templates and explains how it extracts criteria from user prompts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_crops and get_plant_profile by directing individual crop lookups to them.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives, and provides attribution instructions. This gives clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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