Moonlight Garden Daily Routine

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but the description states that 'retry may duplicate an action that did finish' — exactly the additional environmental effect that idempotency rules out. This directly contradicts the declared annotation, so under the rubric the disclosure is scored 1 despite the otherwise useful 'unknown outcomes stop safely' guidance.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the sequence of actions, which is appropriate for a composite tool. However, the first sentence is a long comma-spliced run-on that packs five distinct actions plus an optional branch into one breath, which hurts scannability.

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 multi-step routine with one optional parameter, the description covers the actions and the failure/recovery posture, which is the essential behavior. It gives no indication of what the routine returns or how partial results are reported, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the resolveUnknown property already documents the assume_completed/retry trade-off and the need to ask the user, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces when the parameter applies ('Unknown action outcomes stop safely') but adds little syntax or value beyond the schema text.

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 names concrete actions (run three garden jobs, buy 10 bread worms, cast 10 times, optionally fetch the recipe top five and update the ledger), so the agent knows this is a composite routine rather than a single operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the siblings farm_brief or recipe_check, and 'three garden jobs' leaves the specific jobs unnamed.

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 word 'Manually' implies this is the human-triggered counterpart to some automatic process, and the closing sentence gives a clear directive about when a recovery option may be used. There is no explicit comparison to farm_brief or recipe_check, so the agent must infer which sibling to prefer.

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