Farming

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses seed exclusions (forbidden/dumped/rotten/trader-bound), caps (100 plants, 200 plots), truncation flags, the open_to_sky clarification, and the relationship between no_crop_assigned and no_eligible_crop. It even notes the error response when no fort is loaded.

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?

Though long, the description is dense with essential information and structured logically: purpose first, then plot fields, flags, seed totals, caps, and error. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given the complex output structure and no output schema, the description fully explains the return values: plot dimensions, open_to_sky semantics, seasonal crop assignments, eligibility flags, seed count aggregation, caps, and error conditions. It also situates itself among siblings, making it complete for an agent.

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 and empty schema, so the baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not attempt to fabricate any. It instead adds valuable semantics about the output data model, which is a bonus.

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 tool returns farm plots and seed stock, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools: 'stocks (food OUTPUTS) and game_data (what is plantable, in the abstract) don't cover.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explains when to use this tool vs alternatives by noting what it covers that stocks and game_data don't. It also designates seed_totals as 'the single source for seed stock' and warns against using per-plot seed counts, giving clear usage direction.

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