card_builder_renderer_card_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return value and slot mappings but does not disclose any potential side effects, errors, or prerequisites (e.g., that the card must already exist). The behavior seems straightforward but could be more transparent.

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 efficient with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and output format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and presence of an output schema, the description covers the return format and integration with dashboards_add_card_to_view. However, it omits prerequisites like creating the card first, and does not detail the slot_entities/slot_actions structures further.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining slot_entities and slot_actions with meaningful context ('maps each slot id to entity_id' and 'overrides action configs'). However, it does not elaborate on card_id beyond its name, which is somewhat obvious.

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 builds a Lovelace card config for a Card Builder card and specifies the output format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other card_builder_* tools among the siblings, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this particular tool.

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 mentions using the output as a card in 'dashboards_add_card_to_view', which provides context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, and does not mention when not to use this tool.

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