homey_find_devices_by_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose what happens when neither zoneId nor zoneName is provided, despite both parameters being optional, nor does it mention return format or potential errors. This creates ambiguity for an agent.

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, well-front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise.

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?

While the schema is comprehensive, the description lacks crucial context about the optionality of both parameters and the expected behavior when neither is supplied. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate by clarifying these edge cases, which it fails to do.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameters, such as the relationship between zoneId and zoneName or whether at least one is required, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('devices'), and the scope ('in a specific zone'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like homey_list_devices (which likely lists all devices) and homey_get_device (single device). The parenthetical '(room or floor)' adds useful clarification.

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 implies the tool is for zone-scoped device listing and gives clear context on what a zone is. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative (e.g., homey_list_devices for all devices) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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