shelly_script_get_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it transparently discloses that the device returns source in pages and this tool reassembles them into full source. It does not cover failure modes (invalid id, unreachable device), keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentence with the key mechanism front-loaded and no filler; every word 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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the pagination note helps. However, with two entirely undocumented parameters, an agent still lacks enough to call the tool confidently (e.g., how to identify the device).

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 required parameters. The description says nothing about what `device` (name? IP? ID?) or `id` (script slot number?) mean, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 (get), resource (a script's full source), and even the internal mechanism (reassembling the device's paginated GetCode). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling shelly_script_put_code (write) and shelly_script_list (enumeration).

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?

The name and description imply the use case (fetching source of an existing script), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over shelly_script_list or shelly_script_eval, nor any prerequisite such as the script existing or needing auth.

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