get_inverter_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it omits details like whether it requires an active MQTT connection, how it handles invalid instances, or whether data is real-time or cached. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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 a single, succinct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it is slightly too terse to be considered fully structured, as it omits any context about parameters or usage, but it earns its place for what it says.

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 simple getter with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides the core purpose but leaves gaps. The instance parameter is unexplained, and there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling set tools. The output schema covers return values, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'instance' parameter at all. Even though the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory and has a default, the description fails to clarify what 'instance' refers to (e.g., which inverter). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, which is empty.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'inverter mode and state.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_battery_soc, get_pv_power, and get_grid_status, which target different resources. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving inverter status. While there is no explicit exclusion or alternative mentioned, the sibling tool names (e.g., set_inverter_mode, get_grid_status) imply when this tool should be used. It provides adequate context without explicit when-not guidance.

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