ha_get_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It states the tool gets states but does not disclose what attributes are returned, pagination, or side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the tool name.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loads the main purpose. However, it is slightly under-specified for structure (e.g., no separation of purpose and usage), but still efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple getter tool. It covers the basic functionality but lacks details on return format, performance, or errors. For a low-complexity tool, it is barely sufficient.

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 a clear description for the 'domain' parameter. The description repeats the optionality of domain filtering but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 retrieves the current state of all entities, optionally filtered by domain. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current state of all entities'), which distinguishes it from siblings like ha_get_entity (single entity) or ha_get_history (historical states).

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 implies usage when you need current entity states with optional domain filtering, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings, there are many similar tools (e.g., ha_get_entity, ha_get_history), but the description does not suggest alternatives or exclusions.

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