shelly_kvs_get

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context that the returned value carries its etag, but says nothing about error behavior for missing keys or the fact that a device must be targeted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every element (scope, resource, lookup key, etag detail) 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only annotation covers safety. The remaining gap is that a required parameter (device) is left semantically undefined in both the description and the schema, which is thin for a two-parameter required-argument tool.

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% for both parameters. The description explains the 'key' argument implicitly, but the required 'device' parameter is never addressed anywhere — it is unclear whether it expects a device ID, name, or address, and the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (Get), a precise resource (one KVS value), and the lookup key, which cleanly separates it from the sibling kvs_list (many), kvs_set, and kvs_delete. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation, but an agent can route correctly from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: read a single value when the key is known, as opposed to listing all pairs. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-get distinction.

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