ha_history_list_device_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns entity_ids with their metric kind and analytics capability') which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any other behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, though listing strongly implies non-destructive behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state purpose, give usage conditions, and provide follow-up tool guidance. No filler or redundant content. The description is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers when to use, what it returns, and how to proceed. The schema handles parameter details. It doesn't explicitly mention default behavior (e.g., max_results default) but that's in the schema. This is a solid, complete description for a list operation.

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 parameters (device, max_results, device_class, include_diagnostics) with types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referencing the device name from a prior tool, which is already hinted in the schema's device parameter description.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists entities (sensors and controls) on a specific device in Home.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ha_history_list_devices (which lists devices) and ha_history_list_entities (which lists all entities) by scoping to a single device.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when ha_history_list_devices did not already surface the needed entity_ids or when you need a deeper per-device inspection.' It also names follow-up tools for appropriate entity types ('Use measurement sensors with ha_history_get_sensor_stats and cumulative counters with ha_history_get_consumption'), which helps the agent choose the right path.

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