shelly_script_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint with "Local-only" (no cloud/remote access), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or failure modes when a device is unreachable or has no scripts. That is adequate but thin for the annotation coverage provided.

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?

One compact sentence plus a two-word constraint, fully front-loaded with the action, resource, and scope. Every fragment 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 the field list in the description is redundant but harmless, and return values are otherwise covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented "device" parameter and the lack of any note on how to identify a device, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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?

The single parameter "device" has 0% schema description coverage and is not described at all in the description, leaving the agent to guess whether it expects an IP, hostname, or device id. The listed return fields do not compensate for this gap in input semantics.

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 and resource ("List scripts on a device") and even enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from script siblings like shelly_script_get_code, shelly_script_create, and shelly_script_eval. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. "Local-only" is the only contextual hint, implying the device must be reachable on the local network, but this is a constraint rather than usage direction.

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