list_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral detail: 'name' is a case-insensitive substring match, 'in_stock_only' means inventory > 0, and amounts are in Brewfather's stored metric units. It stops short of noting read-only status, pagination, ordering, or result limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the required 'kind' domain before the optional filters and return note. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the required enum, filter semantics, and unit convention, so return values need not be restated. Minor gaps remain around pagination/result limits and explicit read-only confirmation.

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, and it does: it supplies the four valid 'kind' values (absent from the schema), the case-insensitive substring behavior and default for 'name', and the precise meaning of 'in_stock_only' (inventory > 0). All three parameters are fully disambiguated.

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 ('List inventory items') and enumerates the exact 'kind' domain (fermentables, hops, miscs, yeasts), which is the only place those values appear since the schema has no enum. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling 'set_inventory' (a write) by name and scope alone.

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 explains how to narrow results ('Filter by name ... and/or in_stock_only'), which implies the usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as 'set_inventory' for inventory changes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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