Get entity state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the underlying ha.get_state call, the single HTTP GET to /api/states/<entity_id>, and exactly which fields the response reports. It does not cover error behavior for unknown entity IDs, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a compact Use/Not-for/Returns structure that is easy to scan. The implementation sentence about ha.get_state is somewhat redundant with the Returns line but still informative, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering the return shape, and 100% schema coverage on the sole parameter, the description supplies the remaining context (when to use, alternatives, source endpoint). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single entity_id param is already documented with an example ('light.kitchen') in the schema. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full state and attributes of a single entity') and explicitly scopes to one entity, distinguishing it from list/snapshot siblings in the same sentence block. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 'Use when:' (inspecting one entity's value/attributes before or after an action) and 'Not for:' routing to named alternatives (entities_list_entities, snapshot_get_snapshot). Both the positive and negative conditions are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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