homey_get_live_insights

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time data' (a behavioral trait) but is vague about return format, optional capabilityId behavior, rate limits, or permissions. 'Dashboard style' is unclear and doesn't explain what the response looks like.

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 sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure—no lead with the primary action, no details on scope or alternatives. It is not egregiously verbose, but it doesn't earn higher marks for structure.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description is insufficient: it doesn't explain what 'live insights' returns, whether it returns a single value or a list, or how it relates to sibling tools. Without an output schema, the description should cover return semantics, and it does not.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions (deviceId and capabilityId). The description adds marginal context by implying capability-specific data, but it doesn't clarify whether capabilityId is required for 'specific' capabilities or what happens if omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 states the tool provides real-time data for specific device capabilities, which clearly identifies the action and resource. It differentiates from siblings like homey_get_device_insights and homey_get_sensor_readings by emphasizing 'real-time' and 'Dashboard style', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description gives no context about using this for live data vs. historical data, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess.

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