history_get_ha_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read operation ('get'), but does not mention side effects (none expected), authorization needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but could explicitly state that it is read-only and safe to call.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key information and is easy to parse.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could explicitly state that it has no side effects and that the operation is read-only. Without annotations, this minor omission prevents a perfect score.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the specific configuration fields returned (location, units, version, components), which clarifies what the output contains beyond just 'configuration'.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('Home Assistant configuration'), and explicitly lists included aspects (location, units, version, components). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific configurations (e.g., automations_get_automation_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that this is for the overall HA config rather than integration-specific configs, which would help differentiate from siblings like automations_get_automation_config or ws_get_config.

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