List config entries (integrations)

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's only added context is that the entries are 'installed' integrations, a useful but thin distinction; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what a returned entry contains.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with the resource named first and the filter qualifier trailing. The 'e.g. vomesync' repetition of the schema example is slightly redundant but wastes little space.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool this is nearly enough, and annotations cover safety. With no output schema, though, the description never indicates what a config entry looks like or how results are shaped, leaving that to discovery.

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 including the instance_id refusal semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the optional domain filter with the same example, adding no new meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('List installed Home Assistant config entries') and parenthetically disambiguates them as integrations, which separates it from raw config reads like ha_get_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent siblings such as ha_list_discovery_flows or ha_config_entry_options.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent gets no signal that this lists already-installed integrations rather than pending discovery flows, which is the key discrimination among its siblings.

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