Validate HA configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: it discloses the exact endpoint, that nothing is reloaded or restarted, the typical response payload, and that an httpx.HTTPStatusError is raised when HA is unreachable.

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 sentence followed by labeled Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors sections. Each block is short and earns its place with no filler.

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?

Complete for a parameterless validation tool: purpose, non-mutating guarantee, routing guidance, return shape and error behavior are all present. An output schema exists, so the brief Returns note is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline expectation is 4. The description cannot and need not add parameter meaning, and it doesn't over-explain a parameterless signature.

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 ('Validate the current Home Assistant configuration') and immediately scopes it as non-applying. It names the exact endpoint it calls and distinguishes itself from siblings like system_restart_ha and system_reload_all.

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' (verify configuration.yaml before system_restart_ha) and 'Not for' (applying changes) sections, with the correct alternatives named for each case. An agent can route unambiguously.

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