Farm Configuration

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful context about what configuration elements are retrieved (farm name, domain, backup settings, global options) and the tool's purpose for review/verification. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context beyond what annotations cover.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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 read-only tool with 0 parameters, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what configuration elements are retrieved and when to use it. The only minor gap is that without an output schema, the description doesn't detail the exact structure of returned data, but this is reasonable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what configuration elements are returned, which adds semantic value for understanding the tool's output.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('RAS farm configuration settings'), and scope ('including farm name, domain, backup settings, and global options'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on overall farm setup rather than specific components like administrators, licensing, or performance.

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 provides three concrete use cases: 'review the overall farm setup, verify domain configuration, or check backup scheduling.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that target specific subsystems or components.

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