hass-mcp-plus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the source ('Supervisor journal'), fallback mechanism ('with fallback to error log'), default values for parameters, and practical constraints like the limit range (1-200). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what format/log structure is 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?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, organized parameter explanations in bullet-like format, usage guidance, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, parameters, and usage. The main gap is the lack of information about return format/structure, which would be helpful given the complexity. However, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all parameters: it explains each parameter's purpose, constraints (e.g., '1-200' for limit), default values, and filtering behavior. The examples further illustrate how parameters work together.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Home Assistant core logs'), including details about source ('Supervisor journal') and fallback behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_error_log' by specifying it retrieves 'all levels' with filtering capabilities.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it mentions the need to 'Use set_log_level to enable DEBUG before reading debug logs; reset to WARNING after' and gives two concrete examples showing different filtering scenarios. This gives clear context for proper usage.

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