Get Lovelace dashboard config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is the full configuration including views and cards, which hints at response size, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure modes; the instance-mismatch refusal behavior lives in the schema, not the description.

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 tight sentences: the purpose first, then the argument-sourcing guidance. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what is returned and where the input comes from. Only minor gaps remain around how large/structured the returned config is.

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, including that 'lovelace'/omission means the default overview. The description's 'sam-energy' example adds a small amount of value about custom paths but does not go beyond the schema baseline.

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 full Lovelace configuration for one dashboard') and scopes the return ('views, cards, etc.'), which cleanly separates it from ha_list_dashboards, ha_save_dashboard, ha_create_dashboard and ha_delete_dashboard.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to ha_list_dashboards as the source of the url_path argument and explains what a path looks like. It does not state exclusions (e.g. what to do if you only want a summary), but the invocation context is unambiguous.

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