Grid Meter Status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the specific data fields returned, which helps the agent understand the scope of the read operation. It does not contradict annotations and complements them with operational details.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose and a short usage hint. Every word is relevant and no redundant information is present. It is front-loaded with the main action and data, followed by actionable advice.

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 the complexity of 8 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It mentions key data fields and the critical unitId parameter. It could be slightly improved by noting the transport options or how to find the host, but the schema fills those gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema by advising the user to use victron_discover to find the unitId. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters or their interrelationships, so the baseline score 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 states it retrieves grid meter data and lists specific data fields (power per phase, voltage, current, frequency, energy counters). The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'grid meter data' makes the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the grid meter, which is a specific device type among many status tools.

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 a direct usage guideline: 'Specify unitId for the grid meter (check victron_discover to find it).' This tells the user how to determine a required parameter. It could be improved by explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when reading grid meter data vs. solar or battery), but the naming and context make it implicit.

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