Get automation config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned shape (triggers, conditions, actions), which partially compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about error behavior or whether the returned config is editable.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose and return shape front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's automation description, a minor waste.

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 read-only getter with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient, and naming the returned components partly substitutes for a missing output schema. It could still say more about the config's editability or failure modes.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the instance_id refusal semantics. The description merely restates the automation parameter's accepted forms (entity_id or unique id) with no added syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full configuration ... of an automation') and enumerates the returned components (triggers, conditions, actions), which separates it from a bare list tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, e.g. ha_list_automations or ha_get_config, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance and never mentions alternatives such as ha_list_automations (for enumerating) or ha_set_automation (for mutation). The intended usage is only weakly implied by the purpose statement.

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