get_automations

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return format (unified list, component_type, route_name) and indirectly implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'Returns'. It does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention permissions, which keeps it a notch below full transparency.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the main action, followed by relevant return details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It even adds helpful context by linking to trigger_automation and naming the sibling alternative, making the tool's role in the broader API clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it instead focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate in this case.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get all automations from the Itential Platform Operations Manager.' It further clarifies the unified scope (workflows, agents, compliance plans) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_workflows, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool ('when you need a full picture') and explicitly names the alternative ('Use get_workflows when you only need workflow-type automations'). This provides direct guidance on tool selection.

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