CHAP standby candidates

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 usefully defines the inclusion filter for results (connected to Vome, not in a pair), but says nothing about preconditions such as CHAP enrolment, result ordering, count, or emptiness behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the list contains and followed immediately by the action to take with the result. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably compensates by describing what the returned entries are and implying an id field is present for reuse. It does not describe other fields an entry may carry or ordering, which is a minor gap for a simple read-only lookup.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains instance_id and even points at vomehome_list_instances as its source. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

The description states precisely what the tool returns: the user's other house installs that are connected to Vome and not already paired, i.e. candidates for standby. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the consumer tool vomehome_chap_link_standby. It is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: take an id from this list and pass it to vomehome_chap_link_standby, which is exactly the workflow-level guidance an agent needs. It does not state when this call is unnecessary (e.g. if the home is not CHAP-enrolled) or what to do if the list is empty.

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