rb209_measurement_crop_heights

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

The description discloses that this is a GET operation returning the full list, which implies a read-only enumeration. No annotations exist, so the description carries some burden, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or any limits. Still, for a zero-parameter lookup, this is reasonably transparent.

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 that states the endpoint and the resource content without any redundant wording. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is nearly complete: it says what resource is returned and that it is the full list. It could add a note about how crop heights relate to other measurement tools, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 combines a specific HTTP verb and resource ('GET /api/Measurement/CropHeights') with a clear outcome ('Full list of available crop heights'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like measurement_shoot_numbers or measurement_green_area_indexes.

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 usage is implied: an agent should call this when it needs the complete set of available crop heights. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related measurement tools, and no alternatives are named.

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