ha_get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' but does not confirm it is read-only, require authentication, or describe any side effects. The description merely lists examples without explaining the full scope of the returned configuration or any limitations (e.g., caching, permissions). This is insufficient for an agent to judge safety or side effects.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It begins with the verb and resource, then provides clarifying examples. There is no unnecessary information, and every part earns its place. It is appropriately short for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing example contents. It does not explain the output structure or permissions, but for a read-only getter, this is largely adequate. The absence of annotations slightly lowers the score from a perfect 5, but the description remains effective.

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 schema provides full coverage by definition. The description adds value by enumerating example fields (location, unit system, version, components), which clarifies what 'configuration' entails beyond a generic label. This justifies scoring above the baseline of 4.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Home Assistant configuration', with concrete examples (location, unit system, version, components). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ha_get_components or ha_system_info, which are more specific. This meets the criteria for a specific verb+resource and helps an agent select the correct tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that ha_system_info might be more appropriate for system details, or that ha_check_config is for validation. The agent has no context for decision-making beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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