ws_call_service

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention potential side effects, error handling, authentication needs, or response format, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though its brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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's generic nature (calling any HA service), the description should provide more context about usage scenarios, parameter format, prerequisites, and output. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned, and the description fails to cover common questions an agent might have.

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 0%, meaning the input schema lacks descriptions. The tool description adds no explanation for the three parameters, forcing the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 ('call') and the resource ('HA service') via WebSocket. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'services_call_service' which likely uses REST, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'services_call_service' or specific service tools (e.g., 'entities_turn_on') exist, but no context for selection is provided.

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