shelly_get_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'Safe, read-only.' No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects) are disclosed. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds no new behavioral insight beyond confirming the read-only nature.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, specifying the information retrieved. The second sentence clarifies the parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has a single required parameter and an output schema (present), the description adequately lists the returned device attributes: generation, model, firmware, online state, and capabilities. It does not mention any constraints (e.g., only one device per call) or edge cases, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient. The output schema can provide the full return structure.

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 for the sole parameter 'device' (type string). The description compensates by explaining that 'device is a device id or a configured name,' adding essential semantic meaning. This clarifies what string values are acceptable, significantly aiding correct invocation.

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 tool identifies one device including generation, model, firmware, online state, and capabilities. It specifies the parameter 'device' as a device id or configured name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shelly_get_status (status) and shelly_get_config (configuration), providing a specific verb and resource.

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 notes it is 'Safe, read-only,' implying low risk and appropriate for any context where device info is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., shelly_get_status for live state, shelly_list_devices for all devices), nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. More explicit usage direction would be beneficial.

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