check_energy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'check' and 'suggest', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it does not modify data, require permissions, or have side effects. The description is adequate but lacks full transparency.

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, well-structured sentence of about 20 words. It front-loads the action and domain immediately, includes specific DPTs and components, and contains no redundant or 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it suggests. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project) or the output format, though the latter is presumably covered by the output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. With 100% schema coverage (none), the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters.

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 action: 'check the metering/energy domain' and 'suggest a per-circuit / PV / battery / EVSE structure for the HA energy dashboard.' It specifies the energy DPTs (13.x / 14.056) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_dpt and check_matter by focusing on energy dashboard structure.

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?

While the purpose implies the tool is for energy dashboard setup, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Users can infer its applicability from the domain focus, but clearer exclusions or prerequisites would improve this dimension.

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