HACS status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the error behavior when HACS is absent and mentions pending background tasks as part of the returned state.

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 returned fields front-loaded and the failure mode last. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, which it does concisely. Missing only a pointer to related HACS tools for workflow context.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; its description is quite detailed, including the refusal behavior for a mismatched session. The tool description adds nothing about instance_id, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 the specific resource (HACS) and exactly what the call reports: install status, version, configured country, and pending background tasks. This distinguishes it from the sibling HACS tools, which all act on repositories (list/add/download/remove) rather than reporting installation state.

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?

Usage is only implied. The note that it errors when HACS is not installed hints at a precondition, but the description never says when to call it versus the other ha_hacs_* tools (e.g., as a preflight before add/download). No explicit when-not guidance.

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