crop_planner

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates by mentioning the Tiller +10% auto-application and the base prices default. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies any data, requires specific permissions, or is read-only. More behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core functionality without any redundant or extraneous information. It is well front-loaded.

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 7 parameters, 0 required, high schema coverage (86%), and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the main goal and key behaviors, though additional details about the output format could be mentioned but are not necessary due to the output schema.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by clarifying that 'base prices' are used unless 'quality_weighted' is enabled, and that Tiller +10% is automatically applied. This enriches the parameter semantics, especially given the high schema coverage (86%).

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 it determines which crops fully mature within a given window and calculates profit per tile. It specifies the Tiller profession bonus auto-applied and the use of base prices unless quality_weighted is enabled. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other crop-related tools.

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 implies the tool is used for crop planning but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'crop_quality_odds' or 'sprinkler_plan'. It lacks when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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