Get raw automations

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing that results are unmodified API units and that it surfaces underlying getGroups and getAlarms calls, which clarifies the output format and source.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states the core behavior and representation, the second routes to the sibling tool. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotations. Front-loaded with the essential raw/API-units distinction.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what is returned, in what format, and when to choose the decoded alternative. No missing critical information.

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% for the single parameter controller_id, including a helpful reference to list_controllers. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'for a controller', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning unmodified Automation rule objects (getGroups) plus alarms (getAlarms) for a controller, in API units. It also contrasts with the sibling list_automations by labeling that as the decoded view, making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs users to list_automations for the decoded view, which distinguishes the appropriate use case for each. This is a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use alternative, reinforced by the 'in API units' phrasing that indicates raw output.

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