List the values flows can use

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by explaining that tokens include device capabilities, logic variables, and tags, and by describing the id format ('[[<ownerUri>|<ownerId>]]') which is crucial for using the result. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences, each adding value: definition, purpose, use case, and relationship to validate. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what tokens are, what is returned (values and ids), the reference syntax, and how it connects to validation. It does not enumerate all return fields, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and results.

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 coverage is 100%: both limit and query have descriptive comments. The description itself does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Lists every token on this Homey with the value it holds right now', identifying the specific resource (tokens) and action (list). It also distinguishes the tool by explaining what a token is and giving a unique use case ('read back a tag a script has written'), which separates it from other list tools like homey_flows_list.

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 a concrete use case ('This is how to read back a tag a script has written, which is otherwise only visible in the Homey app') and explicitly references homey_flow_validate as a complementary tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives beyond the validate tool, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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