list_plants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: returns all plants with watering-relevant fields and the as_of calculation effect. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or any potential performance implications, which would be useful for a full list operation.

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, well-structured sentence states the primary purpose first, followed by the optional parameter behavior. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's low parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior. It explains what data is returned and how the optional date parameter affects computation. Could be marginally improved by referencing the filtered sibling tool, but is otherwise complete.

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 schema has one parameter (as_of) with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explicitly explaining its meaning: if provided, calculations are based on that date. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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's function: returning all registered plants with computed fields (last watered, elapsed days, next scheduled date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_plant (single plant) and plants_needing_water (filtered list) by emphasizing 'all registered plants,' though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implied: use when you need a comprehensive list of all plants with watering schedule details. The as_of parameter is explained for date-relative calculations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like plants_needing_water, or when not to use it.

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