Describe one Homey flow card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that. It clarifies the output structure ('arguments is the schema, args is what you fill in') and warns about the failure mode ('Guessing an argument name produces a flow that saves and then does nothing'). This adds value without contradicting the 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 quite verbose, splitting across multiple long sentences without visual structure. While the information is relevant, it could be tightened. The front-loaded purpose sentence helps, but the latter half becomes dense and could overwhelm the agent. The 'save and does nothing' warning is valuable but buried.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers key aspects: what is returned, when to call, an important caveat, and the schema/args relationship. It doesn't include explicit error cases or examples, but the combination of annotations and description provides a complete picture for the agent to use the tool safely.

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 parameters described). The description adds context about the relationship between 'arguments' and 'args', which helps invoke the tool correctly. While it focuses more on output than input parameters, it does explain how the output maps to invocation, which enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Returns everything needed to use one flow card' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like homey_flowcards_search by noting what additional fields are provided, and explains the exact purpose ('Call this for each card before building a flow'). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('Call this for each card before building a flow') and contrasts with homey_flowcards_search ('the same field ... reports with only the name and type of each'). It implies a sequential workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools by name or state 'when NOT to use', so it falls just short of a 5.

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