list_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately signals a non-mutating retrieval operation and names the data returned, but it does not disclose pagination, default behavior when no group is specified, or response formatting. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks rich behavioral 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential information without filler or redundancy. It earns its place by naming the resource, the item categories, and the stock-count aspect concisely.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus input schema provide adequate context: what is retrieved, what categories exist, and that filtering is possible. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that omitting group returns all inventory items, but this is inferable from the optional schema.

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 fully documents the only parameter (group) with type, optionality, and example values, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds useful domain context by enumerating inventory categories, but it does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('inventory items'), and the scope (fertilizers, substrates, pest control, supplies, stock counts). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_plants or search_plants by identifying an inventory-specific domain.

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 clear context that this is the read-oriented inventory tool, which logically distinguishes it from the mutation-focused sibling update_inventory_amount. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative routing instructions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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