get_plug_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that this is a read operation by using 'Get' and lists the returned data types, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no state changes or mention any other behavioral constraints. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short, focused sentences with no wasted words. The core action and data scope are front-loaded, and the intended use case is a natural second sentence.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the device type, the specific data returned, and a use case. It could be slightly more complete by noting units or explicitly stating read-only behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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% and the single deviceId parameter is already described as accepting a device ID or device name. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it states the tool gets power state and energy data (voltage, watts, current) from a SwitchBot Plug Mini. This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like get_device_status and get_all_plugs.

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 a clear use case: 'Use for UPS/energy monitoring.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the stated purpose is enough to guide an agent toward when this tool is relevant.

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