Search Homey devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the API cannot paginate, so paging happens here (offset/limit and `truncated`), and results are projected down to omit protocol settings/icons/images/interface layout for reasoning efficiency. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful operational expectations.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first covers function and filters, the second provides a concrete use case and the AND semantics, the third explains paging and result projection. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations. The description covers the key nuances: AND combination of filters, result projection, paging behavior (since the API can't paginate), and the use of includeCapabilitySummaries. It also cross-references sibling tools (homey_device_get, homey_home_overview). While it lacks explicit details about the output structure, given that the output schema is absent and the description clearly explains the key behavioral aspects, this is near complete for typical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains that all filters are combined with AND, gives usage examples ('what is the state of the living room'), and clarifies the projection behavior. This enhances parameter understanding, especially that includeCapabilitySummaries fills a specific field and points to homey_device_get for full records. The 'Projected' note adds context on what parameters do not control.

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 what the tool does: 'Finds devices by zone, class, capability or name' and mentions returning live values optionally. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing the alternative `search_calls_extensive` and other device-related tools (homey_device_get), and clarifies scope (no user/workspace filtering). The verb 'Finds' and resource 'devices' make the 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Set includeCapabilitySummaries to answer a question like "what is the state of the living room" in one call.' It also explains when not to use it and alternatives: 'For the full record of one capability, with its type, decimals and allowed range, call homey_device_get instead.' Mentions paging behavior and cross-reference to homey_home_overview for zone tree. This is explicit and actionable.

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