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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the response includes trigger, conditions, and actions, which is useful context. However, it does not describe error behavior, return format, or any limitations beyond that.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'read'. No filler, no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the purpose and scope.

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 simple read-only getter with one parameter and clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the key content (trigger, conditions, actions), though it omits details about return format and error behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap but does not hinder understanding.

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 one required parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description merely says 'by id', which adds no additional meaning about the id's format, source, or validation. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 function: 'Read one automation by id, with its trigger, conditions and actions.' It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('automation'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from generic getters like relm_get by naming the resource and the included components.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you have an automation id and need its details) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention when to prefer relm_get_automation over relm_get or relm_list_automations, nor does it state any prerequisites.

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