Get KPI Definitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds value by specifying the return format (array of objects with ID, name, description, unit). However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the list is paginated.

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 succinct, consisting of three short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose, provide an example, and state the return type. No redundant information.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and output structure. However, it omits details about the 'top' parameter (limiting results) and does not explain potential variations in the returned unit field.

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 description does not mention the 'top' parameter at all, even though the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). With only one optional parameter, the description should explain its purpose (e.g., limiting results) but fails to do so.

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 lists KPI definitions and explains what KPI definitions are with examples. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sia_get_crop_zone_kpis by noting that the IDs are used for creating crop zone KPIs.

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 usage guidance by stating that kpiDefinition_ID values are used when creating crop zone KPIs, implying this tool is for retrieving definitions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sia_get_crop_zone_kpis or mention when not to use it.

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