Get Add-ons

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by detailing the specific information returned for each mode (e.g., ingress, ports, options for single add-on; version/state for installed; search for available). It also explains that slug prefixes vary, advising to omit slug to discover the actual slug, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections for each mode, bullet points, and examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section adds necessary detail without redundancy. Despite length, every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers all usage scenarios and return values comprehensively. Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what to expect from each invocation mode.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra context, such as the dependency on repository for slug prefixes, the scope of 'include_stats' and 'query', and includes examples. This extra information raises the score above baseline.

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 states that the tool retrieves add-on information, distinguishing between listing installed, available, or getting details for a single add-on via the 'slug' parameter. It differentiates from sibling tools like ha_manage_addon by focusing on retrieval, not management.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode (slug, installed, available) and notes that the tool only works with Home Assistant OS or Supervised installations. It implicitly suggests ha_manage_addon for management, but could be more explicit about when not to use this tool.

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