Actuadores del cultivo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result reports on/off state per device, which is useful, but says nothing about empty results, unconfigured actuators, or behavior for an unknown crop_id.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and return state front-loaded. The parenthetical device enumeration earns its place by defining what counts as an actuator, though it dominates the sentence's length.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and what state is reported. Only edge-case behavior (empty list, invalid crop) is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single crop_id parameter is fully documented with a regex pattern in the schema. The description only implies scoping to a crop via 'del cultivo' and adds no format or constraint information beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource (crop actuators) plus the enumerated device types and the returned state (on/off), so the agent knows exactly what the list contains. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_crop or list_commands.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the read path for actuator state while send_actuator_command is the write path, but the description never says so or gives any condition or exclusion.

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