calculate_garden_water_needs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It states the tool returns L/week and watering frequency, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs. As a calculator, read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and essential information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, inputs/outputs, and related tools. No wasted words.

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 is a simple calculator with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately. However, it incorrectly mentions 'climate' instead of 'season', creating a minor inconsistency. The output schema exists, so details about return values are not expected in the description.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds little beyond what is in the schema; it lists inputs as 'garden m², climate, plant mix', but 'climate' is not a parameter (season is). This could cause confusion, but overall the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 tool computes weekly water needs for a garden by area and plant type and that it is for irrigation planning. It distinguishes from related calculators like calculate_garden_soil and calculate_garden_sunlight_hours. However, it mentions 'climate' as an input, which is not a parameter (season is), causing slight ambiguity.

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 says 'Use for irrigation planning', providing a clear usage context. It also directs users to see list_bundles for related calculators, offering alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or differentiate from other garden calculators, leaving some ambiguity.

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