Moonlight Garden Daily Routine

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

Beyond the annotations (which already cover readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false), the description discloses idempotency semantics (UTC 00:00 daily, completed raw results preserved), failure behavior (remaining steps stop, successes retained), safe handling of unknown outcomes, and an explicit agent policy forbidding unilateral recovery choices. Nothing here contradicts the annotation profile.

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 main action is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries distinct information (scope exclusions, shared config switch, idempotency, failure semantics, recovery policy). Some clauses ('work_limit counts as already completed and continues to recipes') are compressed to the point of being hard to parse on first read.

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, non-read-only routine with no output schema, the description covers failure modes, idempotency, and recovery policy well. It does not describe what the invocation returns, and it references 'work_limit' without defining it or tying it to any schema field, leaving a small explanatory 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?

With 100% schema coverage the schema already documents resolveUnknown thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds governance meaning on top: it reinforces that the agent must not select a recovery option without the user's explicit decision, which is behavior the schema description only partially captures.

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 the concrete work: run three garden jobs, fetch the latest 50 recipes, pick the five highest sell_value, and update the ledger. It also carves out scope ('No bait purchase or fishing'), which implicitly separates it from fishing_trip, but it never names or contrasts with farm_brief or recipe_check directly.

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?

'On invocation only' implies this is a manually triggered routine rather than a query, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over farm_brief or recipe_check. The recovery-policy sentence is an operational constraint on the agent, not usage routing between sibling tools.

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