Get Lovelace resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it names the underlying endpoint (lovelace/resources), states the result is raw and unfiltered, and enumerates the entry fields. It stops short of pagination or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short labeled lines (summary, Use when, Returns) with the scope stated first and zero filler. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is skimmable.

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 zero-parameter read with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this is complete: it identifies the source endpoint, the return shape, and the downstream workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly signals the no-argument nature by describing an unfiltered, unconditional listing.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (every registered Lovelace resource), with a parenthetical clarifying scope (custom cards, CSS). Clearly distinct from dashboards_list_dashboards and the resource mutation 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?

Explicit 'Use when' clause names the exact precondition (finding a resource's numeric id) and the two downstream tools that consume it, dashboards_update_dashboard_resource and dashboards_remove_dashboard_resource. No inference required.

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