get_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: 'Get' implies a safe read, yet it omits error behavior for invalid entity_id, return shape, and any auth/rate considerations. Only the API mechanism is noted, adding little beyond the name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. The 'via the native REST API' detail is arguably unnecessary for tool selection but is not harmful.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description is borderline adequate on purpose but leaves parameter format and error behavior undocumented, which an agent needs for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for entity_id beyond the vague phrase 'any HA entity'. It does not explain the expected format (e.g., domain.object_id) that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 verb+resource is clear ('Get the current state of any HA entity'), and 'current state' implicitly distinguishes it from historical reads like get_history. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from near siblings such as get_registry_entity or list_entities, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (get_history, get_registry_entity, list_entities), and no prerequisites. The 'via the native REST API' clause is implementation detail rather than usage direction.

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