Search Homey flow cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing that an unfiltered call is refused and that results are minimal (only cardId and argument names/types). It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond what structured fields offer.

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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then explaining flow cards, then filter requirements, then output format and next steps. Each sentence contributes to understanding, though the explanation of flow cards could be considered baseline knowledge for the domain. It is front-loaded and not wasteful.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the output structure (cardId and arguments) and directing to homey_flowcard_describe for full details. It covers the essential behavioral constraints (filter requirement, result limitation) and provides enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly, even without an output schema.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the requirement of at least one filter and gives examples for owner, device, and query. It also clarifies that results are limited, which indirectly affects parameter choice. This goes beyond the schema's descriptive text.

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 the tool's purpose: to find flow cards on the Homey. It explains what flow cards are (trigger, condition, action) and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like homey_flowcard_describe by explicitly directing users to call describe after selecting a card. This makes the purpose unambiguous and actionable.

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 specifies when to use this tool (to search and select flow cards) and provides the key constraint that at least one filter is required, with an unfiltered call refused. It also clearly guides the next step: call homey_flowcard_describe with the returned cardId for full argument details. This gives explicit usage context and differentiates from describe/autocomplete.

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