Read Device Category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds context: it reads all registers for a category (33 categories), supports partial match on category name, and advises a discovery step. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the tool's purpose, second gives a crucial prerequisite. No redundant or vague content; highly efficient 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's scope (all categories), partial matching, and the discovery prerequisite. A minor gap is not mentioning the potential for large output, but overall complete for a read-only tool with strong annotations.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds extra semantic value by noting partial match support for category names and advising use of victron_discover for unit IDs, which is not in 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?

Description clearly states 'Read all registers for any Victron device category by service name', specifying the verb 'read' and resource 'all registers for a category'. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like victron_read_register (single register), but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 advises using victron_discover first to find devices and unit IDs, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like victron_read_register or victron_list_registers, leaving usage context implied.

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