energy_get_energy_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'via WS' (WebSocket) and 'Return', indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavior is straightforward but not fully transparent.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, scope, and transport mechanism. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no parameters, a rich output schema exists, and the tool is a simple read, the description adequately covers the essentials. It could mention read-only nature or permissions, but it remains complete enough for correct use.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is expected. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Return Energy Dashboard info' with examples (cost sensors, currency) and specifies the WebSocket endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling energy tools like energy_get_energy_prefs, which deals with preferences.

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 implies usage for retrieving dashboard info but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any conditions. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context.

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