farm_briefReads and compresses farm, coop, watering, and bee status into one summary with UTC timestamps, so agents can check current chores without performing garden or bee actions.
Read and compress farm, watering, chicken, cabbage-gap, bee-hive, bee-trip, and waiting-young state. It performs no garden or bee actions and returns UTC timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful negative scope ('performs no garden or bee actions') and the return detail 'returns UTC timestamps', which the annotations do not cover. Without an output schema, more on the compressed shape would help, so this is a moderate add.
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, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and fully enumerated scope. The negative-scope clause is placed after the positive read statement, which is the right order.
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?
A parameterless read tool with strong annotations and no output schema: the description covers what is read, what is not done, and one return characteristic (UTC timestamps). Slightly more on the compressed output format would make it complete.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline 4. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by describing an unconditional state read, with no misleading param claims.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Read and compress' the farm state across named domains (farm, watering, chicken, cabbage-gap, bee-hive, bee-trip, waiting-young). The scope is concrete enough that an agent knows what it returns, though siblings daily_routine and recipe_check are not referenced for differentiation.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools daily_routine or recipe_check. The agent must infer that this is a broad state-summary call from the domain list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.