Get ESPHome add-on status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: dynamic slug discovery from the live /addons list, and the specific failure modes (no matching slug, SUPERVISOR_TOKEN unset). It stops short of describing freshness/caching, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Front-loads the single-sentence purpose, then structures use/not-for/returns/errors, which is easy to scan. The parenthetical aside about per-repository hash prefixes is internal implementation detail that a caller does not strictly need, making it slightly over-length for a zero-parameter tool.

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-param read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description still covers invocation-relevant context: it names the return keys, the error payload shape, and the auth prerequisite implied by SUPERVISOR_TOKEN. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret failure.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing in the schema for the description to clarify. The description correctly implies no inputs are required by describing slug resolution as an internal discovery step.

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 and resource ('Get the ESPHome add-on's status, version and update availability') and immediately distinguishes scope by naming the adjacent capabilities it does not cover. An agent can separate it from esphome_get_addon_logs and supervisor_get_addon without opening any schema.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use when:' clause covering the three states it answers (installed, running, up to date) and an explicit 'Not for:' clause routing log requests to esphome_get_addon_logs. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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