rb209_grass_potential_cuts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does indicate a GET request and a returned list, but it does not disclose output format, whether IDs must already exist, error behavior, or any constraints on the returned values. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a meaningful gap.

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 one concise sentence and front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint. It contains no filler, though it is terse enough that the meaning of 'different number of cuts' could be slightly clearer.

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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and both required inputs are already documented. However, it does not explain what a 'cut' represents, what the returned list items look like, or how this fits into the broader RB209 workflow, leaving some gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters as the sward type id and sward management id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond echoing the path template, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource ('PotentialCuts') and an action ('list'), and identifies the target as 'the field' and 'different number of cuts'. It is clear enough to distinguish this from sibling grass tools like yield ranges or sward management lists, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any particular sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related RB209 grass tools, nor does it state prerequisites or contexts such as 'use when selecting cutting regimes'. The path and wording imply a lookup, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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