ws_get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('Get'), but does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects, or response characteristics. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency beyond the basic function.

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 at five words, with no wasted information. It is front-loaded and every word is meaningful. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is appropriate.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema. The description is sufficient for understanding the core purpose. However, it could mention the existence of a sibling 'history_get_ha_config' to aid selection, but that is already covered in usage guidelines. Overall, it is nearly complete for a tool with no parameters.

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, so there is nothing to explain. With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description need not add parameter details. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no unnecessary guidance.

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 'Get HA config via WebSocket.' clearly specifies the verb (Get), resource (HA config), and medium (WebSocket). It distinguishes from sibling ws_* tools because others involve calling services, getting states, etc. There is no ambiguity in what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Notably, there is a sibling tool 'history_get_ha_config' which also gets HA config, creating potential confusion. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling is mentioned.

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