Get logbook

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by naming the return fields (when, name, message, entity_id) and the default start window, which no structured field supplies. It omits any note on result limits or ordering, so not a 5.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then args, then return shape. The parenthetical example earns its place, though the 'Args:'/'Returns:' telegraphic style is slightly clipped.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return fields and the default time window. An agent can call this correctly; only limits/pagination and sibling disambiguation are missing, which are minor for a read-only query tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the ISO 8601 format, the 1-day default, and the entity filter. The description merely restates 'start (default: 1 day ago), entity (optional), end' without adding format or behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Human-readable history entries') and grounds it with a concrete example ('Light turned on by automation'). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling ha_get_history, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 lists accepted arguments but never says when to choose this tool over ha_get_history, ha_get_error_log, or ha_get_calendar_events. Nothing here routes the agent between the closely related history siblings.

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