Get entity state

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 that it returns full state plus attributes, but says nothing about behavior for unknown entities, unavailable states, or cross-instance refusal (that detail lives only in the instance_id schema field).

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 no filler; the core action leads and the usage cue follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden; it only gestures at 'full state and attributes' without indicating the state/attributes structure an agent must parse. Adequate for selection, thin for consumption.

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%: entity_ids format and examples plus the instance_id refusal semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'one or more' cardinality, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (entity state/attributes) and adds a scope qualifier ('one or more entities'), which distinguishes it from the list-style sibling ha_list_entities and the time-series ha_get_history. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: read exact current values before mutating them or writing template/automation logic. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it names no alternative tool to use instead (e.g., ha_list_entities for bulk browsing).

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