Farm OS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no unnecessary verbosity. However, the 'Returns' section could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it lacks sufficient context for optimal use, especially compared to siblings.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'equipment_id' is 'The unique identifier for the equipment', which clarifies its purpose, but the schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't elaborate on format, examples, or constraints. With one parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is met, but no additional value is provided.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get information about specific equipment.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('equipment'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., get_farm_info, get_field_info), which all follow a similar 'get information about X' pattern, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_equipment_by_farm' or 'search_by_crop_type'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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