Search sensor history logs

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 covered. The description adds behavioral context: fuzzy matching fields, the scale (well over a hundred logs), and the 'never guesses which one was meant' behavior, which is valuable beyond 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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value. It explains the problem (hundreds of logs in household language), the solution (fuzzy matching), and the behavior (candidates, never guesses) without waste.

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 simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description fully covers the relevant context: what it does, how to use it, and what to expect (candidates with ids). The annotations and schema fill the remaining safety and parameter details, making the description complete.

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%, with each parameter (type, limit, query) having a description in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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: 'Finds Insights logs' by fuzzy matching over multiple fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like homey_insights_query by positioning itself as the entry point to translate natural language into log IDs, explicitly saying 'start here'.

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 strong usage context: 'start here' and 'this is how ... becomes a log id you can query' suggest when to use it. It also notes that omitting the query browses first logs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tool homey_insights_query is implied.

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