Read inverter settings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with '(not change)' while adding scope about which settings are read. It does not go further to describe return format, permissions, or external behavior, but for a read-only settings tool this is acceptable given the annotation.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence. It opens with the critical 'Read (not change)' qualifier and then lists the settings scope without filler or repetition.

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-only tool, the description plus complete schema coverage is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are that no explicit sibling routing is provided and there is no output schema, so the exact return format is unspecified; however, the listed categories give an agent enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'sn' is fully documented in the schema, including the important 'omit for the first inverter' behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read'), explicitly disambiguates from mutation ('not change'), and names the exact resource: the inverter's configuration. It further enumerates concrete settings categories, which clearly separates it from siblings like live_status, power_flow, or energy_history.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs inverter configuration such as work mode, SOC targets, or battery limits. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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