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 the return type ('List of equipment'), but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. It avoids unnecessary details, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels add slight redundancy that could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important for effective tool selection and invocation by an AI agent.

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 context for the single parameter 'farm_id' by explaining it as 'The unique identifier for the farm', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic type definition. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is effective, though it could be more detailed (e.g., format examples).

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 verb ('List') and resource ('equipment for a specific farm'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_fields_by_farm' or 'list_livestock_by_farm', which follow a similar pattern but target different resources, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 such as 'get_equipment_info' or 'search_by_crop_type'. It only states the basic function without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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