shelly_get_config

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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds high-value behavior: credential fields are masked as ***, Gen1 /settings would otherwise leak Wi-Fi/MQTT secrets, and cloud-only devices get an actionable error. This is exactly the security and failure-mode context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by supporting security and locality notes. The dense parenthetical is justified by the security rationale, and there is little wasted text.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover read-only safety; the description adds masking and error behavior. The one real gap is the undocumented 'component' parameter.

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% and there are two parameters. The description implies the 'device' target but never explains the optional 'component' parameter, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Get a device's configuration') and adds meaningful scope via credential masking and the local-only constraint. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from similar-sounding siblings like shelly_get_info and shelly_get_status, so the agent must infer which to pick.

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 'Local-first — the Shelly Cloud API can't expose config' note is a genuine usage constraint, telling the agent this only works for locally reachable devices and errors for cloud-only ones. But no alternative tool is named for when this isn't appropriate, and there is no explicit when-not guidance beyond the cloud limitation.

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