MCP Domotica Backend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('obtiene información') and mentions the return includes 'todos sus dispositivos' (all its devices), which adds useful context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a real-time query versus cached data. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly structured and concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place - the purpose statement is essential, the Args explains the parameter, and the Returns clarifies what information is included. No wasted 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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter read operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return content, but doesn't provide enough context about the tool's behavior, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools. The Returns section mentions 'información completa' but doesn't specify the format or structure of the returned data.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'room_name' in the Args section, providing semantic meaning ('nombre de la habitación' - name of the room). Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema has no descriptions), the description fully compensates by explaining what this parameter represents. With only one parameter clearly documented, this is above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Obtiene información detallada de una habitación específica' (Gets detailed information of a specific room). It specifies the verb (obtiene/gets) and resource (habitación/room), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from its sibling 'consultar_habitaciones' (which likely lists multiple rooms). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tools (agregar_habitacion, consultar_habitaciones, eliminar_habitacion, modificar_habitacion) or explain when this specific room query is appropriate versus listing all rooms or modifying rooms. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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