Live inverter status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains sign conventions for battery and grid power, warns to check raw fields if unsure, and notes the default to the first inverter. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent interpret results.

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 two sentences with no waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a high-level breakdown of the returned data categories, which is helpful. It also covers sign conventions and default behavior. However, it does not list exact field names or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity, but for a read-only tool with annotations covering safety, this is a reasonable level of detail.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small note about the 'sn' parameter defaulting to the first inverter, which is already implied by the schema description ('omit to use the first inverter') but is reinforced. It does not add significant meaning for 'include_raw' beyond the schema.

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 provides a real-time snapshot with a specific list of metrics (solar PV, battery, grid, household load, inverter output). It is a specific verb+resource and is easily distinguishable from siblings like energy_history, which would focus on historical data.

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 use for live status but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sunsynk_power_flow or sunsynk_energy_history. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the content.

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