alexa_get_smart_home_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: 'An unreachable device is reported on its row, not as a failure' tells the agent partial results are normal, and the view field's field-dropping behavior is surfaced. Auth, rate limits, and pagination remain unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned readings, then the targeting rule and the unreachable-device caveat. The long enumerative opening sentence is dense but each listed reading earns its place by pre-empting 'what will I get back' questions given there is no output schema.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating the fields per device type, plus the unreachable-device edge case. Combined with full schema coverage of the inputs, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the targets provenance and the compact/full enum. The description's mention of naming devices or passing a kind restates the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the live state of Alexa smart-home devices') and enumerates exactly which readings are returned — thermostat mode/setpoints, light on/brightness/colour, lock, contact/motion, reachability. This clearly separates it from listing tools like alexa_list_smart_home, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops 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?

The description explains how to scope a read ('Name the devices, or pass a kind ... to read every one of that kind'), which implies usage, but it never says when to choose this tool over alexa_control_smart_home, alexa_set_thermostat, or alexa_list_smart_home, and gives no exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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