list_registers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral hint — that the register set is server-known rather than device-probed — but says nothing about pagination, size of the returned list, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope constraint land immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and one optional parameter is a light burden. Still, for a listing tool sitting beside read_registers and read_raw_registers, the definition should say how the three relate — that omission is the main completeness gap.

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 0%, and the description only mentions "the plant or an inverter," omitting two of the four enum values (ac_charger, dc_charger). This is less compensation than the gap requires and could mislead an agent about the valid scope set.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("named registers") plus the scope of the listing, so an agent can tell it apart from value-reading siblings like read_registers and read_raw_registers. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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 phrase "known to this server" implies this is a discovery/metadata call rather than a value read, but the description never states when to use this instead of read_registers or read_raw_registers. Usage is left to inference.

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