about_microfarm

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys that this is a read-only, non-destructive information tool with no stated side effects. The description honestly represents the tool's output as an explanation. However, it could be more explicit that this likely returns static textual content and doesn't query external data.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('plain-language explanation') and immediately specifies the two topical areas. No wasted words; every element contributes to the definition. It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

Given the simple informational nature of the tool, the description is nearly complete for an agent to understand its purpose and content. While it could benefit from mentioning the expected format of the response (e.g., 'returns a paragraph'), the description covers the essential 'what' and 'why' sufficiently. The main gap is the undocumented parameter, which is already penalized in the parameter semantics dimension.

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 schema defines a single required 'text' parameter with zero description coverage. The tool description provides absolutely no guidance on what this parameter means, what format it should be in, or how it should be populated. For a required parameter, this is a critical gap that forces the agent to guess.

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 clearly states this tool provides a 'plain-language explanation' of micro-farms and what to look for in land. This distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools (find_land, assess_land) by being informational rather than transactional, though it doesn't explicitly name the 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?

The description implies this tool is for learning foundational context before using other tools, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives like 'zone' or 'land_sources'. It lacks a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case from the phrase 'plain-language explanation'.

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