fibaro_home

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to indicate which operations are destructive (e.g., delete_room, restore_backup), required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The description only lists operations without behavioral context.

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 moderately concise but contains repetition (e.g., 'energy_graph, energy_panel' appears twice). It front-loads the general purpose and then lists supported topics, which is reasonable, but could be more tightly 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 tool with 38 parameters and many operations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover all operations, lacks details about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It provides only a high-level overview and specific guidance for a few operations.

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?

With only 18% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It explains a few sub-operations (device_stats, energy_panel, energy_graph) but does not provide semantics for most parameters like room_id, section_id, or the many op enum values. The description adds minimal value 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's purpose as 'Home/system management' and lists major capabilities (rooms, sections, users, weather, etc.). It distinguishes between sub-operations within the tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fibaro_device.

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 explicit guidance for certain operations: 'For quick stats use op=device_stats', 'For current power consumption use op=energy_panel', 'For historical energy/power data use op=energy_graph'. This helps an agent choose the appropriate operation within the tool, though it does not cover all operations or exclude sibling tools.

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