shelly_virtual_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description's main addition is naming the underlying RPC method (Shelly.GetComponents). It says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether the device must be online, so value beyond annotations is modest.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope lead. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, which is the right side of the tradeoff.

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 values need not be described, and the read-only annotation covers safety. The unresolved gap is the device parameter's semantics and the lack of differentiation from shelly_list_components, which leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 'device' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not explain its format, whether it is an ID or address, or how to obtain it. With 1 undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 (virtual/dynamic components), which implicitly separates it from the sibling shelly_list_components. However, it never explicitly says how it differs from that generic lister, leaving the distinction to inference.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer shelly_list_components, and no prerequisites or context about what qualifies as a virtual component. The agent has to guess the routing.

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