shelly_get_status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real context by stating the output folds Gen1/Gen2/Cloud into one canonical shape while also returning the raw per-generation payload. 'Safe, read-only' partially restates the annotation, but the normalization behavior is genuinely 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 tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope first, then the optional narrowing parameter, then the safety profile. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still adds the normalization framing. The one gap is the undescribed required `device` parameter, though its meaning is fairly self-evident.

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 load. It explains `component` with a concrete example ('switch:0') and its narrowing effect, but says nothing about `device`, leaving the required identifier parameter undocumented.

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 normalized live status') and clarifies the scope with the Gen1/Gen2/Cloud normalization detail, which meaningfully separates it from shelly_get_config and shelly_get_info. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is 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?

It tells the agent how to narrow scope with `component`, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling readers (get_config, get_info, energy_live). Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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