Get script config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — it reads through the Home Assistant config pipeline and returns entity state plus any high risk actions — but says nothing about what happens when the id is missing or how large/complex configs are returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return payload. The second sentence largely duplicates the schema's script_id description, which is the only waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the three components returned: stored configuration, entity state and high risk actions. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete, with only failure/edge-case behavior left unspecified.

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% and the schema already documents that script_id accepts either a config id or an entity id with an example. The description's closing sentence restates that same fact rather than adding format, resolution or precedence detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read the full stored configuration of one script') and adds what else is returned (entity state, high risk actions), which distinguishes it from 'list_scripts'. It never names a sibling like get_script_trace or validate_script_config, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch one script's stored config by id. There is no explicit 'use this instead of' guidance against nearby siblings such as get_script_trace (runtime trace) or validate_script_config (validation), so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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