Create virtual sensor

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

Annotations already declare the operation is mutating, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, the description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as whether a new device appears immediately or what side effects creation has. There is no contradiction with annotations, but no additional transparency either.

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 short but under-specifies rather than being effectively concise. The cross-ref is cryptic, and the text does not front-load useful context an agent can act on. This is more under-specification than intentional conciseness.

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?

For a tool with three required parameters, an output schema, and many similar siblings, the description leaves the agent to infer what a 'dummy' is, how sensortype numbers work, and what the hardware cross-reference means. Output schema covers return values, but prerequisites and operational effects are absent. The definition is too thin to be contextually complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with meaningful descriptions for hw_idx, sensorname, and sensortype. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond those field descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 'Create dummy' is essentially a colloquial restatement of the title 'Create virtual sensor' rather than a precise explanation. It doesn't clarify what a dummy/virtual sensor is or how it differs from siblings like add_user_variable or create_event. The cross-ref to hardware hints at scope but doesn't specify the action's outcome.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an existing hardware index. The cross-ref to domoticz://hardware implies a relationship but does not explain it. No alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases are provided.

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