Listar cultivos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description's only additional value is enumerating the summary fields returned, which is largely redundant given an output schema exists; it says nothing about ordering, volume, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (account) and returned fields come first. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, leaving no room for the when-to-use guidance it lacks.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations and an existing output schema, the definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the sibling-routing guidance is missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 no parameter explanation is required and the schema is trivially complete. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 verb and resource ('Lista los cultivos de la cuenta') plus the fields each entry carries (tipo, forma, salud, estado del dispositivo, última lectura), so an agent knows this is a summary listing of all crops. It does not explicitly contrast with get_crop or get_fleet, but the plural-scope wording makes the distinction inferable.

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: the plural 'cultivos de la cuenta' suggests this is the browse-all entry point, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_crop (single crop) or get_fleet. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternatives.

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