Get device commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that this is preferred over guessing command names and is a prerequisite step before hubitat_send_command, which provides useful usage context beyond the annotations. With strong annotations, the additional guidance about being a low-level lookup/discovery operation adds value.

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?

Exceptionally concise and well-structured. Three short sections: core purpose, explicit 'use when' condition, and explicit 'do not use when' exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff or redundancy. The use/do-not-use formatting aids quick scanning.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool, this is complete. The description covers purpose, use cases, and exclusions. An output schema exists to document the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. Annotations handle the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, with the only parameter (device_id) documented as 'Maker API device ID' in the schema itself. The description doesn't add parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, but the schema's description is clear enough that the agent knows what to supply. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 states 'List commands available for a device via Maker API' — a specific verb+resource combination with clear purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hubitat_send_command (which executes commands) by clarifying this is a listing/discovery tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance. 'Prefer this over guessing command names' establishes a strong recommendation; 'Use when: before hubitat_send_command to confirm the command exists' gives a precise trigger condition; 'Do NOT use when: sending a known simple Switch on/off' names an explicit exclusion case. This is model Tier A guidance.

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