list_inventory

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral details: it returns only user-supplied inventory, converts units per ingredient type, and includes spec figures, which exceeds what annotations convey.

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?

Three tight sections: purpose, args, returns. No fluff; every sentence carries operational meaning. The structure is conventional and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter list tool, the description covers execution constraints, input domain, and output format (units and spec figures). The existence of an output schema further reduces the need for return-type detail.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description provides complete parameter semantics: category enumerates four valid values, and in_stock_only explains its filtering behavior and default. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List inventory for one ingredient category.' It further clarifies scope by noting it excludes the full Brewfather database, distinguishing it from the sibling list_batches and list_recipes tools.

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 states the tool is for listing user-added inventory only, with a caveat about not being the full database. However, it does not name an alternative tool for full database queries, so usage guidance is clear but not explicitly differentiated beyond sibling names.

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