Get Entity Exposure

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

With annotations already covering read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, the description adds substantial operational detail: what the list output contains, how defaults apply to absent entities, what fields a single-entity lookup returns, and what happens when has_custom_settings is False. It also discloses conditional enrichment with entity name/area fields when the ha_mcp_tools component advertises the capability, which is valuable beyond structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and mode distinction, then uses examples and a conditional enrichment note. Every sentence carries useful information, though the final paragraph about ha_mcp_tools enrichment is somewhat verbose and could be slightly tighter without losing meaning.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is complete: it explains both operational modes, return semantics, default behavior, and conditional enrichment. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly without consulting other documentation.

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 meaningful semantics: it explains that omitting entity_id changes the tool from a single-entity lookup to a list operation, and it illustrates the assistant filter with a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's brief parameter descriptions and clarifies the behavioral impact of each optional parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get entity exposure settings') and clearly distinguishes the two operational modes: listing all entities with explicit exposure settings versus retrieving settings for a specific entity. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like ha_get_entity or ha_search based on the focus on exposure configuration.

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 gives clear context for when to omit entity_id to list exposed entities and when to include it to inspect a specific entity, reinforced by two examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ha_get_entity or ha_set_entity, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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