ha_get_logbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states an action ('Fetch') that implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, return format, pagination, or any special behaviors. For a simple fetch, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and key concept. It contains no fluff and every word adds meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary use and the 'since' parameter, but omits the 'end' parameter and does not explain return values or how this differs from the sibling 'ha_get_history'. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail would be helpful for full completeness.

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 input schema has 3 string parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description clarifies that 'since' is an ISO time and that 'entity_id' is optional for filtering. However, the 'end' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 'Fetch logbook entries since an ISO time (optionally for an entity)' clearly states the verb (Fetch), resource (logbook entries), and scope (since ISO time, optional entity filter). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ha_get_state and ha_get_history by referencing logbook entries specifically.

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 usage: when you need logbook entries based on a temporal boundary and optionally an entity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. Since sibling tools like ha_get_history exist, mentioning when to prefer this over them would improve the score, but it is not misleading.

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