automations_get_automation_config

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 tool returns None if not found, which is useful, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or other behavioral traits. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 simple tool (one param, output schema exists), the description adequately covers usage and behavior. It mentions return type and null case. Missing explicit error handling, but output schema likely 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds critical meaning: it specifies that the automation_id can be a bare id or prefixed with 'automation.', which is not obvious from the schema. This adds value.

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 an automation's YAML config as a dict, specifying the resource ('automation') and action ('get config'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'automations_get_automation_trace' and 'automations_get_script_config'.

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 the accepted input format (bare id or 'automation.<id>'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied by sibling names.

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