Get Automations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting the response includes component_type discriminator and route_name needed for triggering via trigger_automation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the output shape and cross-tool integration.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and cross-references. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete: it states what is returned, how to use it, and when better alternatives exist. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the description supplies the necessary semantic context.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, but it does add contextual meaning about what the returned automations look like (component_type and route_name), which supports effective use even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 all automations from the Itential Platform Operations Manager and explicitly distinguishes it from get_workflows by noting it returns a unified list of workflows, agents, and compliance plans. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need a full picture of what is available in the Operations Manager.' It also names an alternative: 'Use get_workflows when you only need workflow-type automations.' This clearly orients the agent about when to select this tool over a sibling.

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