list_my_farms

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action and scope but does not disclose behaviors such as whether the list includes archived farms, pagination limits, ordering, or performance implications. There is no mention of any side effects or prerequisites. For a read operation, more context is needed given no annotations to fall back on.

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, concise sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope clearly. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or irrelevance. Every word is necessary, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters or complex behavior.

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 list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it tells the agent that the tool lists farms, which is sufficient to invoke it. However, it lacks information on what the output contains (e.g., farm IDs, names) and any filtering or pagination behavior, which could be important for agent decisions. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not rich; a higher score would require more operational details.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has full coverage (100%) in the sense that the schema is empty but complete. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate (as per guidelines for 0 params).

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 'List all farms that the user has access to' clearly states the action (list) and resource (farms), and specifies the scope (farms the user has access to). This distinguishes it from similar list tools like list_groups or list_animals, though it could name a sibling explicitly. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the resource type, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to list farms the user has access to, which is useful for context or selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_farm or set_default_farm. It provides minimal guidance, leaving some inference to the agent, which is adequate but not comprehensive.

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