Farm OS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Returns: List of all farms with basic information', which implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another describing the return. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, the second sentence could be integrated more seamlessly, and there's minor redundancy in 'List all available farms' and 'List of all farms'.

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 (0 parameters, simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks context. It covers the basic purpose and return, but without annotations, it should provide more behavioral details like safety or performance considerations to be fully adequate.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.

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 'List all available farms' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_farm_info' or 'get_farm_summary' by emphasizing 'all' and 'basic information', though it could be more explicit about the distinction. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name.

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 like 'get_farm_info', 'get_farm_summary', or 'search_by_crop_type'. It mentions 'all farms' but doesn't specify contexts where this broad listing is preferred over filtered or detailed queries, leaving usage unclear.

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