List automations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the exact payload (entity_id, unique id, state, last triggered time), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not cover pagination or the instance_id refusal behavior, but that is minor here.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 list tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields is the key missing piece and it is supplied; the only gap is the absence of guidance on the alternative list tools in this large sibling set.

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% and the single optional instance_id is fully documented in the schema, including the cross-home refusal semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all automations') and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from the singular ha_get_automation. The parenthetical 'unique id (needed to read/edit config)' even hints at the downstream sibling, though it never names ha_get_automation or ha_set_automation explicitly.

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: by noting the unique id is 'needed to read/edit config,' it suggests this is the discovery step before get/set automation. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative (e.g. ha_list_entities) for a broader entity listing.

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