list_silos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral detail by indicating the output includes capacity in metric tons, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns all silos, or any other behavioral traits. This is slightly better than a tautology but still minimal for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence of nine words. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, list operation), and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, the description lacks usage guidance and provides only minimal behavioral context. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but leaves gaps in guidance and transparency for an agent selecting this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It links the sole parameter plant_id to the phrase 'at a plant', which confirms that plant_id identifies the silo location. However, it does not explain the format, allowed values, or any other constraints, leaving the parameter semantics mostly to the schema's field name and title.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('grain silos'), and adds the scope ('at a plant') and a relevant detail ('with capacity in metric tons'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_plants (by resource), list_motors (by resource), and get_silo_thermometry (by listing vs. retrieving temperature data).

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'at a plant' implies the plant_id parameter, but the description does not mention any exclusions or provide context for choosing list_silos over other tools (e.g., get_silo_thermometry).

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