rb209_measurement_shoot_numbers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only GET returning the complete set of values, but it says nothing about response format, ordering, or any limitations. That is adequate for a simple no-parameter list but leaves room for more detail.

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 compact sentence that leads with the exact endpoint and immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes; there is no padding or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, states that it returns all values, and implies no inputs are required. It could be improved by explaining what 'shoot numbers' represent or how the result is intended to be used, but that is not essential for successful 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?

The input schema is empty and the tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The rubric baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly implies that no invocation arguments are needed.

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 HTTP verb ('GET'), a specific resource ('/api/Measurement/ShootNumbers'), and the exact purpose: returning the full list of available shoot numbers. This clearly separates it from sibling measurement tools like crop_heights and green_area_indexes by naming the distinct resource.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention any alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name and the phrase 'Full list' that this is a general lookup tool.

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