shelly_energy_live

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

readOnlyHint already declares the safety profile, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: 'None where a device can't report it (e.g. Gen1 plugs have no voltage/current)' explains null handling per device generation. The trailing 'Safe, read-only' is redundant with the annotation rather than additive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the metric list, then null behavior, then channel guidance. Efficient, though the final 'Safe, read-only' clause repeats the annotation and could be dropped.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, yet the metric list plus the null caveat give the agent enough to interpret results. The only real gap is the unexplained required 'device' parameter, which is minor given the obvious device-identifier context.

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 carry the parameter load. It explains the optional channel param ('narrow to one'), but the required 'device' param is left undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation warrants a baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('live power/energy per channel') and enumerates the returned metrics (power_w, voltage, current, pf, freq, totals). 'Live' implicitly contrasts with the shelly_energy_history sibling, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is only suggested rather than explicit.

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?

Implied usage is clear from 'Live' (real-time readings) and 'Pass channel to narrow to one,' but it never says when to choose this over shelly_energy_history or shelly_get_status. No exclusions or alternatives are given, leaving routing to inference.

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