fibaro_scene

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

No annotations are present, so the description must shoulder the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions operations like run, stop, create, delete, but does not explain side effects (e.g., running a scene triggers actions, deleting removes it permanently). For a tool with destructive operations, this is a 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 two sentences with no waste. The critical usage advice is front-loaded with 'IMPORTANT'. Every word adds value.

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 6 parameters and moderate complexity, the description covers the main point but lacks details on return values (no output schema) and behavioral effects of mutations. It is adequate but not fully complete for safe autonomous use.

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 83% (5/6 parameters described). The description adds nuance: it clarifies that 'name' can be used with 'op=get' (though schema only lists 'name' for create/update_lua) and that 'room_id' can filter 'list' operations. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 'Scene management: list/get/run/stop scenes and Lua code' and lists all supported operations, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like fibaro_device or fibaro_home by focusing on scenes.

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 'IMPORTANT' guidance on when to use 'list' vs 'get', including filtering advice for efficiency. However, it does not compare this tool to sibling tools like resolve_by_name or first_run, so cross-tool guidance is missing.

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