shelly_version

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but this is a zero-parameter read-only version lookup with nothing destructive or stateful to disclose, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. The 'health check' note adds a small amount of context about intent.

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 short sentence, purpose front-loaded with the scope qualifier appended. No filler or restated information.

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?

For a parameterless health-check tool with an output schema that already describes the returned version payload, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing to document beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 (Return) and resource (shelly-mcp server version) with a parenthetical clarifying intent (health check). Among many get/list siblings, 'server version' is unambiguous and cannot be confused with shelly_get_info (device info) or shelly_get_status (device status).

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 '(health check)' label implies the scenario for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor any alternative tool named. For a trivial diagnostic tool this is adequate but not instructive.

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