list_automations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states it returns a list of dictionaries with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), any performance implications, or potential for large result sets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return structure.

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 has redundancy: the first sentence 'Get a list of all automations' is repeated by 'This function retrieves all automations'. The 'Examples' section is not an example but a restatement of behavior. The Returns section is informative, but the overall structure could be more efficient without losing meaning.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and availability of an output schema, the description provides sufficient coverage: it states exactly what it returns and the fields included. It lacks details like ordering or pagination, but these are likely irrelevant for a list of automations. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function and output.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none. According to the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters, and the description does not need to compensate for anything missing.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb ('Get a list') and the resource ('all automations from Home Assistant'). The second sentence reinforces the scope and includes specific fields ('IDs, entity IDs, state, and display names'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entities or list_dashboards, which target different resource types.

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 implicitly communicates that this tool is for automations, not other entities, which distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative guidance. Given the simplicity of the tool, the implied context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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