shelly_get_status

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the normalization across Gen1/Gen2/Cloud and the return structure (canonical channels plus raw payload). No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise: two short paragraphs with clear front-loading of the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 that the output schema likely documents return values, the description provides a high-level summary of what is returned. The two parameters are adequately described, and the tool's normalization and safety are covered. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'component' parameter with an example. While 'device' is not elaborated, it is a common required parameter and self-explanatory. The description adds significant value over the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Get a device's **normalized** live status'. It specifies the resource (device status), the verb (Get), and the unique normalization aspect that distinguishes it from other getters like shelly_get_info or shelly_get_config.

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?

It explains when to use the optional 'component' parameter: 'Pass ``component`` (e.g. ``"switch:0"``) to narrow to a single component.' It also notes the tool is safe and read-only. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the sibling context implies this tool is for live status.

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