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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool removes the cache file and clears in-memory cache, and describes the return dictionary. This is transparent about the destructive action, but could mention idempotency or permission requirements.

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: three short sentences plus a structured return value specification. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no parameters, a simple output schema, and the context signals, the description fully covers purpose, usage guidance, and outcome. It explains when to use, what happens, and what to do next. No gaps remain.

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 zero parameters (100% coverage trivially). The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description could have explicitly stated 'no arguments required,' but not necessary.

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 clears the persistent device cache, specifying it removes the cache file and clears in-memory cache. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_cache_info' (which reads cache) and 'scan_network' (which rebuilds cache), providing a specific verb and resource.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'when devices have changed or cache is corrupted.' It also suggests a follow-up step ('Run scan_network after clearing'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context implies it's for troubleshooting. This is clear enough for an agent, though exclusions would improve it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it sends commands, supports dimmers, requires prior discovery, and details the return dictionary. It could mention if the action is idempotent, but overall transparent.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is slightly verbose but every section adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (multiple actions, conditional parameter, prerequisite), the description covers all necessary aspects: prerequisite scanning, action options, parameter relationships, and return format. No output schema is provided, but the description compensates.

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 0%, but the description adds clear meaning: device_identifier can be name or IP, action is constrained to four values, and brightness is conditional on action. This fully compensates for missing schema 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 the tool controls a WeMo device with specific actions (on, off, toggle, brightness) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_status and list_devices.

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?

It explicitly notes the prerequisite that the device must be discovered via scan_network, and explains the brightness parameter usage. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations exist, but the description fully explains the read-only nature and the returned fields (age, expiration, etc.), leaving no behavioral gaps.

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 succinct, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear returns section without unnecessary text.

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 no parameters and an output schema (implied from context), the description covers all necessary aspects and provides complete return value documentation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter description is needed; the description does not add confusion.

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 specifies 'Get information about the persistent device cache' and lists what it returns, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like clear_cache or list_devices.

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 states it is 'useful for determining if a rescan is needed,' providing context for use, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns configuration and source info, but does not explicitly state if it's read-only or safe. The lack of mention of side effects is acceptable for a getter, but more clarity on behavioral traits would improve transparency.

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 well-structured with a main sentence and a Returns section, but it redundantly lists examples in both prose and the structured list. Slightly verbose, but overall clear and front-loaded.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema (implied), the description provides sufficient context about use cases (debugging, verification) and return content, making it complete for an agent to understand invocation and outcome.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as it covers no-param case.

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 retrieves server configuration, listing specific settings (network, cache, logging). It distinctly differs from sibling tools like control_device or clear_cache, which involve mutations.

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?

Explicitly mentions use for debugging or verifying environment overrides, providing context. However, it does not state when to avoid use or name sibling alternatives, but siblings are mostly unrelated so exclusion is unnecessary.

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

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

Discloses prerequisite (discovery) and return fields, but lacks details on error behavior, authentication, or side effects. Since no annotations, description carries burden.

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?

Concise, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, no wasted words.

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?

Covers essential information (purpose, prerequisite, return fields). Output schema exists but description is vague on 'additional device information'. Could mention error states.

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 has 0% coverage; description compensates by providing examples (name or IP address) for device_identifier, adding significant meaning.

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 retrieves current status and information for a WeMo device by name or IP, distinguishing it from siblings like list_devices or show_device_status_ui.

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?

Explicit prerequisite: device must be discovered via scan_network first. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states prerequisites (device discovered, HomeKit support) and the possibility of an error. It also describes the return format. No contradictions or hidden side effects are evident.

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 well-structured with clear sections: summary, prerequisites, note, Args, Returns. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 there is one parameter and an output schema (implied by context), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, parameter usage, and return value structure. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema provides only a type 'string' for 'device_identifier' with 0% coverage. The description adds significant meaning: it explains the parameter can be a device name (e.g., 'Office Light') or IP address (e.g., '192.168.1.100'), which is essential for the agent to use it correctly.

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 retrieves a HomeKit setup code for a WeMo device. The verb 'Get' and resource 'HomeKit setup code' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'control_device' or 'get_device_status', which perform different functions.

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 explains that the device must be discovered via 'scan_network' first and notes that not all devices support HomeKit, implying when not to use. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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

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

Describes return format (dictionary with device_count and devices list) and source (cache), but does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects; still adequate without annotations.

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?

Concise three sentences plus returns section, front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, no wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisite, and return format completely for a parameterless list tool with an output schema.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4; description adds no param details but none are needed.

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 specifies verb 'list' and resource 'WeMo devices from cache', clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'scan_network' (populates cache) and 'get_device_status' (specific 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?

Explicitly states prerequisite 'Run scan_network first to populate the device cache', guiding when and when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the device cache will be updated and recommends refreshing the list. It does not mention side effects or mutability beyond renaming, but the behavior is adequately covered.

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 well-structured with sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded with the core action. There is minor redundancy (two sentences saying essentially the same thing), but overall it's concise and efficient.

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 lack of annotations, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, parameters, and return values comprehensively. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but for a straightforward rename tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly. For device_identifier, it specifies it can be a current name or IP, with examples. For new_name, it explains it's the new friendly name with an example. This adds significant meaning 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 renames a WeMo device, changing its friendly name. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., control_device, get_device_status) by focusing solely on renaming, a unique action.

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 clear prerequisite: the device must be discovered via scan_network first. It also suggests running scan_network again after renaming. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context is sufficient given no alternative renaming tools.

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

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

Describes the scanning steps: probing ports, verifying responsiveness, using pywemo. However, it omits potential side effects like network load or that scanning may be slow.

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?

Well-organized with clear sections (purpose, steps, args, returns). Could be slightly more concise but appropriate for the complexity.

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?

Covers input, process, and output adequately. No annotations or schema descriptions, but description provides thorough details. Missing error handling or empty results clarification.

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 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters including defaults and context usage. Each parameter is described with sufficient detail.

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?

Clearly states the tool scans network for WeMo devices using pywemo. Verb 'scan' and resource 'network for WeMo devices' are specific and distinguish from siblings like list_devices or control_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?

Implied usage for initial device discovery but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools. The description lacks guidance on alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the output (rich HTML with cards/buttons) but does not mention side effects, authentication, or caching details. However, the tool appears to be a read-only display of cached devices.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose, one for output, and one for fallback. All information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose, output format, and fallback. It could mention the dependency on prior caching or scan, but the phrase 'all cached devices' implies that.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. It adds no parameter info, which 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 'Show an interactive WeMo device dashboard inline in the host' and specifies the rich HTML output with cards and buttons. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_devices by noting the text-only fallback.

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 explicitly says it is 'Supported in Claude Desktop, VS Code, ChatGPT, Goose and any other MCP Apps-compatible host', indicating when to use this tool. It also provides a clear alternative: 'Text-only fallback: use list_devices instead.'

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool returns HTML and supports various hosts, but does not state whether it modifies device state, requires authentication, or handles errors. While the tool name implies read-only, this is not explicitly confirmed.

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—two sentences plus an args line—with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently includes fallback guidance and supported hosts.

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 single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output format (rich HTML), supported hosts, and alternatives. It lacks explicit error handling or permission details, but overall is complete for a simple UI tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning by specifying that device_identifier is 'Device name or IP address.' This bridges the gap, though additional details like format or validation would improve clarity further.

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 shows a device status card with interactive controls, specifying it returns rich HTML with device details and buttons. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning a text-only fallback using get_device_status and control_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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Text-only fallback: use get_device_status + control_device instead.' This tells the agent when to avoid this tool and offers clear alternatives, making the usage criteria well-defined.

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