get_plant_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does reveal that the result includes care attributes, timestamps, and custom properties, which implies a read-only fetch and gives useful return-content context. It does not discuss error behavior, permissions, or response shape, but this is a simple get-by-ID operation.

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?

A single compact sentence delivers the core action and the main output categories without filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the expected return content. It could be more complete by stating not-found behavior and explicitly confirming it returns a single plant object, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with plant_id already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource (plant details) and enumerates concrete content: care attributes, last watered/fertilized timestamps, and custom properties. This distinguishes it from list_plants and get_plant_history, though it does not explicitly name these siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as list_plants or get_plant_history. The description only states what the tool returns; it does not say when it is appropriate or list any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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