ha_unavailable_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'List' and does not mention side effects, permissions, pagination, or return behavior. The verb implies a read operation, but little else is disclosed.

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?

The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the tool's action and target entities.

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?

The definition is minimally viable for a simple two-parameter listing tool with an output schema, but it lacks usage differentiation and does not explain limit's role. An agent can likely invoke it from schema defaults, but selection confidence is weakened by missing context.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It partially clarifies include_unknown through 'opcionalmente unknown', but limit is never mentioned, leaving one of the two parameters semantically undocumented.

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 uses the verb 'Lista' and a specific resource: unavailable entities, with optional inclusion of unknown entities. This is clear enough to understand the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ha_search_entities or ha_get_entity.

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 about when to prefer this tool over ha_search_entities, ha_get_entity, or other entity-related tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The only usage signal is implied from the tool's purpose rather than explicitly stated.

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