Get Automation Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: config_hash is stable across consecutive reads of an unchanged config (a caching/idempotency signal), and automation_id resolution semantics with a fallback to the input identifier. This is context beyond the structured fields, though no error/not-found behavior is described.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return contents, then two examples – a clean progression. The trailing keyword blob ('read inspect fetch view ... get show detail') is pure stuffing that earns no place and drags an otherwise tight description down slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not owed, and the description still covers the parts an agent needs (config_hash stability, id resolution). For a single-parameter, read-only getter with full annotation and schema coverage, nothing material is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by confirming identifier accepts either an entity_id or a unique_id and by explaining how that identifier is resolved into the returned automation_id. That resolution/fallback rule is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get Home Assistant automation configuration') and enumerates what the returned config contains (triggers, conditions, actions, mode). The 'automation' resource cleanly separates it from the many sibling tools like ha_config_get_script, ha_config_get_scene, and ha_config_set_automation without needing the schema.

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?

Two worked examples show exactly what to pass (entity_id vs unique_id), giving clear invocation context, and it routes documentation questions to ha_get_skill_guide. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer ha_get_entity or ha_get_state over this, so it is clear-but-not-complete.

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