Get Entity Exposure

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the return structure for both listing and single-entity cases, explaining conditional enrichment when the ha_mcp_tools component is available, and noting which fields are absent otherwise. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 sections for general behavior, examples, and return values. It is slightly verbose due to detailed return info, but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

For a tool with only 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: multiple usage modes, filtering, conditional enrichment, and detailed return format. It is fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds extra value by providing usage examples and explaining the effect of omitting entity_id (list vs specific), which enriches understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets entity exposure settings, with two distinct modes: listing all entities or getting a specific entity. The verb 'get' and resource 'entity exposure' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ha_get_entity and ha_get_state by focusing exclusively on voice assistant exposure settings.

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 clear usage context through examples for listing all, filtering by assistant, and getting a specific entity. It implicitly differentiates from other entity tools by its specialized purpose, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or direct comparison with alternatives like ha_get_entity.

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