automations_validate_automation_references

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool calls Home Assistant, checks entity and service registration, skips templates, and returns a detailed output structure. Lacks mention of permissions or side effects, but for a read-only validation tool, the behavior is well-disclosed.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, contrast, and limitation, followed by a clear return object definition. Every sentence 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?

Despite no annotations and minimal schema, the description fully explains the tool's operation, inputs, outputs (listing all return fields), and its niche among many sibling automation tools. Complete for its complexity level.

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 one required string parameter yaml_content with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'automation YAML' but does not elaborate on format, structure, or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. Some value added beyond schema but could be more specific.

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 cross-checks entity IDs and services from automation YAML against the live HA registry, distinguishing it from the static validate_best_practices sibling. The verb 'cross-check' and specific resources are well-defined.

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 contrasts with validate_best_practices, stating this tool is dynamic and verifies existence, while the other is static. Also notes template values are skipped, providing clear guidance on when 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.