get_fleetRetrieves and compares all crops in the account so you can review status across the entire fleet and identify differences between plants.
Comparativa de todos los cultivos de la cuenta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds only that it covers all crops in the account, but does not explain what the comparison includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints beyond the annotations.
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 short sentence with no wasted language. It is appropriately concise, though its terseness contributes to ambiguity elsewhere.
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?
With no output schema and a vague term like 'comparativa', the description should explain what data the comparison returns. As written, an agent cannot tell whether it returns aggregate metrics, rankings, or something else.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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 says it provides a comparison of all crops in the account, which clarifies the misleading tool name 'get_fleet'. However, 'comparativa' is vague about what is actually compared or returned, so the purpose is only partially clear.
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?
It does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as list_crops, get_crop, get_overview, or get_readings_summary. The account-wide crop comparison scope implies some usage, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.