get_grid_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the return-shape distinction between instance=0 and instance=N, and the word 'Get' implies a read-only operation. It does not discuss failure modes or empty discovery, but for a simple status query this is adequate transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by the essential instance-parameter behavior in two terse clauses. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers the key usage and return distinction. It does not mention error handling or how meters become 'discovered', but those are minor gaps given the output schema and simple nature of the tool.

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 schema provides only a bare integer parameter with a default, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining the semantic difference: instance=0 returns every discovered grid meter as 'readings', while instance=N returns a single device dict. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('grid/AC status'). It further clarifies behavior by explaining that instance=0 aggregates all discovered grid meters while instance=N returns a single device dict. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings, but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to distinguish it.

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 gives concrete guidance on how to use the instance parameter (0 vs N), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_battery_soc or get_pv_power. The use case is implied by the resource name rather than clearly framed.

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