Diagnose the Homey connection

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: no credential is ever exposed, output is safe for public issues because it redacts names/addresses/IDs/paths, and each check provides a next step. It also clarifies the role of CLI auth in flow creation.

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 dense and packed with useful specifics, but it is structured as one long run-on paragraph. Every clause adds value, so it is not wasteful, yet front-loading with short labeled sections would improve scannability.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool reports, why it is safe to share, when to use it, and what each check includes. It satisfies the diagnostic use case without leaving major gaps.

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?

The main description does not address the two parameters, but the input schema already describes both with 100% coverage, including defaults and cost implications. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema-based baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reports') and identifies a clear resource scope ('what is and is not working between this server and your Homey'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by framing itself as the diagnostic entry point before reporting problems.

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 gives explicit usage timing: 'Call this when another Homey tool fails, or before reporting a problem.' It also names a concrete alternative, the terminal command 'npx homey-mcp doctor', for the version that includes more detail.

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