shelly_rpc

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that mutating methods are refused and unknown methods are treated as writes and rejected, which provides behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two short sentences, no redundant words. The key constraint (read-only, alternative tool) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Has output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on parameter syntax or format, which is not fully compensated by the schema. Still, for a generic RPC proxy tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 should compensate but does not explain the meanings of 'device', 'method', or 'params' parameters individually. It only gives method naming patterns, leaving the agent to guess the exact inputs. High-level context is present but insufficient for parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calls read-only RPC methods on a device, specifying the method patterns (*.Get*, *.List*, *.Check*). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool shelly_rpc_write.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (read-only methods) and when-not-to-use (mutating methods) with direct reference to the alternative tool shelly_rpc_write. Also notes that unknown methods are rejected server-side.

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