energy_get_energy_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns info via a WebSocket endpoint, but omits details like idempotency, side effects, or access requirements. The brevity leaves significant ambiguity.

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 sentence with no wasted words, directly stating the purpose and the underlying endpoint. It is optimally concise for a simple tool.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the resource and provides examples. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., Energy Dashboard setup) and could note that the result is a snapshot, not a stream.

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?

With no parameters, the description adds value by enumerating typical return contents (cost sensors, currency), which the input schema (empty) cannot convey. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool returns Energy Dashboard info, specifies examples (cost sensors, currency), and mentions the underlying WS endpoint. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like energy_get_energy_prefs or energy_add_*.

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 Energy Dashboard info but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., energy_get_energy_prefs). No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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