farm_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral details such as pagination (limit/offset) and the target parameter sourced from config.yaml, but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or deeper side-effect implications. This is consistent with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single sentence for purpose followed by a compact Args block. Every word earns its place, with the [READ] prefix and field list providing immediate recognition. It is well-structured and free of fluff.

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 read-only list tool with robust annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, return fields, pagination, and the target parameter. It does not include an output schema, but it lists the returned fields explicitly. Minor gaps like error handling or default page behavior are not critical for this simple operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It provides brief explanations for limit (page size, default 50), offset (page offset), and target (config.yaml reference with default behavior). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed about ranges or interactions.

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 action 'List Horizon RDS farms' and specifies the return fields (id, name, type, enabled, RDS server count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pool_list or image_list, which target different resources. The [READ] tag reinforces its read-only purpose.

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 usage as a paginated listing tool for RDS farms but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The mention of pagination and config-based target selection gives context, but there is no direct guidance on alternatives.

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