get_history_stats_sensor

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it only implies read-only behavior via the word 'Return'. It does not disclose error behavior for unknown names, required permissions, or what the returned config 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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple single-parameter getter. The brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows it fetches one sensor's config by name. Gaps remain around the naming key, failure behavior, and the shape of 'config', which the lack of schema coverage leaves unaddressed.

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 0% for the single parameter 'name', so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'name' identifies one sensor; it does not say whether it is the entity ID, the sensor's display name, or a config-entry identifier.

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 ('Return') and resource ('config of a single history_stats sensor'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_history_stats_sensors and the mutating upsert/delete siblings. It is clear but never names an alternative 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_history_stats_sensors or upsert_history_stats_sensor, no prerequisites, and no statement of what happens when the named sensor does not exist. The singular 'a single' is the only implicit routing signal.

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