Farm Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content scope (domain/backup/global options) but nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape beyond that list.

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, zero filler, with the resource named first and the use cases second. Efficient and front-loaded, though the content enumeration and the usage list overlap slightly in intent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned settings categories does useful work in telling the agent what to expect. With 0 params and full annotation coverage, nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No syntactic or format guidance is needed for a parameterless read.

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 resource (RAS farm configuration) and enumerates the contents — farm name, domain, backup settings, global options — so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ras_farm_get_licensing or ras_farm_get_version by being the broad setup read, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Gives three concrete use cases: reviewing overall farm setup, verifying domain configuration, and checking backup scheduling. That is clear positive guidance, but it offers no exclusions or explicit routing away from the narrower farm_get_* siblings when those would suffice.

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