get_active_devices

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that it retrieves information. It does not explain what 'active' means, whether the operation is safe/read-only, if authentication is needed, or what the response contains. Significant transparency gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description still fails to provide necessary context about what constitutes an active device, how the deviceClass filter works, and what kind of information is returned. It is incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (deviceClass) with a clear enum description, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline 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 clearly uses the verb 'get' and specifies the resource 'active devices', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific device types (e.g., inverter, meter). However, 'active devices' is somewhat ambiguous and does not leverage the deviceClass parameter to clarify scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_inverter_info or get_meter_realtime. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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