farm_info

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only and closed-world, and the description adds meaningful context: it reports the authenticated user and whether writes/deletes are currently allowed. It does not discuss auth requirements or rate limits, but for a simple introspection tool the behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 two efficient sentences with the return contents front-loaded and the usage instruction immediately after. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 no parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned and when to call it. Return value structure can be left to the output schema.

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, so parameter semantics are inherently minimal. The schema is empty and the description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb, "Show," and lists the concrete server fields returned: name, version, authenticated user, resource types, and write/delete permission status. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool list_resource_types, which also relates to resource types.

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?

It gives a clear usage cue: "Call this first when unsure what the instance supports." That is a useful condition for invocation, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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