homey_run_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('trigger') but does not disclose important traits such as whether the operation is asynchronous, if it returns a confirmation, or requires specific permissions. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects or expected outcomes.

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, front-loaded sentence ('Trigger a specific standard flow') with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and earns its place, making it an appropriately concise description.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but not complete. It does not explain the context of standard flows or how to obtain the flow ID, nor does it mention what happens after triggering (e.g., success/failure response). Sibling tools like homey_list_flows would provide context, but the description alone leaves gaps.

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 100% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'The ID of the flow'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify where the ID comes from or any format expectations. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 identifies the action ('Trigger') and the resource ('a specific standard flow'), and the word 'standard' distinguishes it from the sibling 'homey_run_advanced_flow'. However, it does not elaborate on what triggering entails (e.g., starting a flow execution) beyond the basic verb.

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 use of 'standard flow' implies a distinction from 'advanced flow' (sibling homey_run_advanced_flow), providing implicit usage guidance. Yet it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mentioning that the flow ID should be obtained from homey_list_flows or that this is for standard flows only.

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