ws_get_states

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details such as whether it returns current states only, includes attributes or hidden entities, response size implications, or any side effects. The brevity leaves significant ambiguity.

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 sentence that communicates the essential information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it 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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It mentions the key differentiator (WebSocket, speed). However, it could benefit from clarifying what 'states' includes (e.g., all entities or selected) and any caveats about response size.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it could optionally describe the output format. Since the output schema exists, the description's minimalism is acceptable, earning a high score.

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 ('all entity states'), and the method ('via WebSocket'). It distinguishes from REST-based siblings and implies a performance benefit, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: 'faster than REST for large installs.' It implies when to prefer this tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, thus missing some guidance for complete decision-making.

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