smarthome_automation_review

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope, but fails to disclose whether this is a read or write operation, side effects, or return behavior. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 short and to the point, consisting of three sentences with no fluff. However, it could be front-loaded with the tool's specific action rather than routing details.

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 complexity (multiple sibling smarthome tools, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output, when to use, or provide enough context for an agent to decide correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by calling 'message' a 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' an 'optional JSON string'. This is helpful but lacks detail on required structure or examples.

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 states 'Run the smarthome domain agent action `automation_review`' but does not explain what an automation review is or how it differs from sibling tools like smarthome_event_review. The purpose is vague and relies on internal jargon.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other smarthome tools (e.g., event_review, scene_assist). The description does not specify contexts or provide exclusions.

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