system_get_repairs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It states the tool lists active repair issues, which implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no writes) or any authorization needs, but for a list operation, this is minimally adequate. A higher score would require explicit mention of read-only nature or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that directly state the purpose and provide examples. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool is a straightforward list operation with no parameters and an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the issues are and why they need attention. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the result is a list of repair issues, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is given because the tool has no parameters; no additional description is needed.

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's action ('List') and resource ('active Home Assistant repair issues'). It provides concrete examples of what constitutes a repair issue (deprecated config, broken integrations, required migrations). There are no sibling tools that list repair issues, so it is well-distinguished.

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 specifies the tool is for listing active repair issues that require attention, with examples. It implies the use case is to check for configuration or integration problems. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as using system_get_updates for update-related issues.

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