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 mentions that it returns a 'comprehensive summary' and a 'dictionary', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'comprehensive' entails (e.g., depth of assets). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant with the opening sentence. It could be more concise by integrating these details, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks context for usage and behavioral traits. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but without annotations, it should do more to guide the agent, such as explaining scope or sibling differentiation.

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 meaning beyond the input schema: it specifies that 'farm_id' is a 'unique identifier for the farm', which is slightly helpful but basic. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate by explaining format or constraints, so it scores lower.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive summary of a farm including all its assets'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_farm_info' or 'list_all_farms', which could provide overlapping or related functionality.

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. With siblings like 'get_farm_info' (likely more basic) and 'list_all_farms' (likely a list without details), the agent is left to infer usage context without explicit direction, which could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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