Snapshot of a dashboard view

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: partial-failure tolerance ('Parts that fail carry an error; the rest still answers') and a prerequisite for camera stills (the key's Cameras tick through VomeHome). The prerequisite wording is somewhat obscure, and nothing is said about output size limits or ordering.

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-loaded with the aggregate contents, then the intended caller and alternative, then failure semantics. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the trailing camera prerequisite sentence is awkwardly phrased and slightly cryptic.

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 five optional, deeply nested parameters and no output schema, the description does the important work of outlining what each returned section contains. It omits any note on result size, ordering, or how the caller-supplied template keys map back in the response, but the core is covered.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including nested frames/history structures. The description restates those areas at a high level (frames, templates, history, entity_ids) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource ('snapshot of a dashboard view') and enumerates exactly what the single call aggregates: entity state/attributes, rendered Markdown templates, history points, and camera stills. It also distinguishes itself from ha_get_state, which it names as the simpler alternative for reading a few entities.

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 names the intended caller ('a client drawing a dashboard, such as a pane in Claude Code') and the alternative condition (reading a few entities yourself -> use ha_get_state). This is a clear when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else statement.

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