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 retrieves information (implying read-only), but does not mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., field metadata, status). This leaves significant gaps 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, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, though the Returns section is somewhat vague ('Dictionary containing field information') and could be more specific if not for the output schema.

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, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for description here, but overall completeness is moderate with clear gaps.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only defines 'field_id' as a string. The description clarifies it as 'The unique identifier for the field (e.g., 'field_001')', providing an example and context that the schema lacks. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific field.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('field'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_farm_info' or 'get_equipment_info' beyond specifying 'field' as the target. This makes it clear but not sibling-distinctive.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'list_fields_by_farm' for broader queries or 'search_by_crop_type' for different filtering, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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