shelly_list_components

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

'Safe, read-only' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation already present, so it earns no credit. Beyond that the description adds the discovery-purpose context but says nothing about behavior on an unknown device, auth requirements, or error semantics; with an output schema present, return-format disclosure isn't needed either.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with a useful inline example and no filler. The only wasted phrase is 'Safe, read-only,' which duplicates the annotation.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return shape, the description only needs to establish purpose and workflow placement, which it does. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'device' parameter format.

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 the single required 'device' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It implies the parameter is a device identifier ('present on a device') but never specifies the expected format (device ID, IP, name) or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to guess.

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+resource ('List the component keys present on a device') and gives a concrete example output (['switch:0', 'input:0']), which pins down the return shape. It implicitly separates itself from shelly_list_devices by scoping to a single device's components, though it never explicitly names a sibling it could be confused with.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule: 'Use this to discover what a specific device exposes before reading status or controlling it,' which places it as a prerequisite step ahead of shelly_get_status / shelly_switch_set. No when-not conditions or named alternatives are provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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