shelly_list_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the Gen1/cloud failure mode and that the error is actionable, which tells the agent how to interpret a failure rather than blindly retrying.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the constraint. No filler and nothing needing to be read twice.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. The description rounds this out with the Gen2+ applicability and error behaviour; only the device parameter's format remains unspecified.

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% and the sole required parameter 'device' is undocumented in both places. The description only implies a device is targeted; it never says whether the parameter expects an IP, device ID, name, or discovery handle, so it fails to 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (RPC methods a device supports), and names the underlying API (Shelly.ListMethods) plus the Gen2+ scope, which separates it from sibling list tools like shelly_list_components. An agent can identify what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the when-not condition: Gen1/cloud devices cannot enumerate methods and will yield an actionable error, implying use only against Gen2+. It does not name an alternative for those cases (e.g., shelly_rpc / shelly_list_components), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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