Check a config for ESPHome renames

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: what each entry contains (old spelling, new spelling, release that changed it), the operational meaning of `required: true` (config will fail to compile vs. works but is on borrowed time), and where the information surfaces in the ESPHome UI. That is real disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short paragraphs with the core capability front-loaded and the required-flag semantics second. Mostly efficient, though 'which is otherwise invisible from here' and 'on borrowed time' are stylistic filler rather than operational information.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the shape of each returned entry and the meaning of its fields, plus the mutation path via esphome_save_config. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this read-only tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the instance_id refusal behavior. The description does not add format or syntax detail for `configuration` beyond 'a device's YAML', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Report the ESPHome spellings a device's YAML still uses that have since been renamed') and anchors it to a recognizable artifact ('the same Config migration available notice the ESPHome dashboard shows'). An agent can distinguish it from esphome_validate or esphome_get_config 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?

Gives clear context for use and routes the follow-up action explicitly ('Apply a rename by editing the YAML with esphome_save_config'), and explains the meaning of the required flag. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closest sibling, esphome_validate, so the agent must infer that validation and migration-checking are different concerns.

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