Farm OS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Get[s] information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more concise (e.g., merging into one sentence). No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and detailed parameter semantics. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics: it defines 'livestock_id' as 'The unique identifier for the livestock group', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples, leaving the agent to guess valid values.

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's purpose: 'Get information about specific livestock' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('livestock'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_livestock_by_farm' (which lists multiple) by focusing on retrieving details for a specific ID. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'information' includes or how it differs from other get_* tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid livestock_id), contrast with 'list_livestock_by_farm' for browsing, or indicate when other get_* tools might be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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