get_automation_yaml

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is raw YAML from a specific file and clarifies the all-vs-single scope, but says nothing about read-only safety, error behavior when an automation_id doesn't match, or output size. Useful scoping context, but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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 is returned, followed immediately by the scoping behavior. No filler and every sentence 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?

For a read tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what is returned (raw YAML) and how scope varies. It would be fully complete with a brief note on read-only nature or the file source path, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 one optional parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that automation_id selects a single automation and that omitting it returns everything. That maps the enum of behavior (single vs all) clearly, though it doesn't specify the id format.

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: returns raw YAML config from automations.yaml. This implicitly distinguishes it from get_automation (structured) and list_automations, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The description explains the parameter-driven scoping ('pass automation_id for a single automation, or omit to get everything'), which implies when to narrow vs broaden. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this raw-YAML tool over get_automation, list_automations, or the other automation tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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