get_plants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the account-visibility scoping and clarifies the domain term, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or output size behavior. With strong existing annotations, this is acceptable but not extensive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, domain clarification, and scope. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter list operation with robust annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what result to expect in general terms, and the output schema covers return-value detail.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description offers no misleading or missing parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('plants'), clarifies that plants are solar installations, and scopes the result to those visible to the current Growatt account. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plant_details or get_plant_data, which are entry-specific rather than list-oriented.

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 gives clear context: use this to list all plants visible to the account. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_user_plants, but the account-wide 'all plants' phrasing makes the intended use fairly unambiguous.

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