get_string_realtime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only operation through the verb 'Get', and it mentions the data returned (voltage and current). However, it does not explain the behavior of the dataCollection parameter, especially the difference between 'NowStringControlData' and 'LastErrorStringControlData', which could significantly affect what data is returned. This leaves important behavioral details undisclosed.

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, succinct sentence that communicates the tool's purpose immediately. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides basic context: it returns voltage and current per string. However, it does not clarify the significance of the two dataCollection options, particularly 'LastErrorStringControlData', which might not be 'real-time' as the description claims. This ambiguity leaves a gap in understanding correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an enum and default value. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not explain the semantics of the enum options, but the schema already describes it as a collection type.

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's function: 'Get real-time DC string data (voltage and current per string)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'string data' helps differentiate it from sibling real-time tools like inverter or meter. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives, so it falls short of 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 description implies usage context by naming 'DC string data', so an agent can infer when to use it. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other real-time tools, no exclusions, and no mentions of prerequisites. The usage is implied rather than clearly spelled out.

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