show_device_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the output (rich HTML with cards/buttons) but does not mention side effects, authentication, or caching details. However, the tool appears to be a read-only display of cached devices.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose, one for output, and one for fallback. All information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose, output format, and fallback. It could mention the dependency on prior caching or scan, but the phrase 'all cached devices' implies that.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. It adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Show an interactive WeMo device dashboard inline in the host' and specifies the rich HTML output with cards and buttons. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_devices by noting the text-only fallback.

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?

The description explicitly says it is 'Supported in Claude Desktop, VS Code, ChatGPT, Goose and any other MCP Apps-compatible host', indicating when to use this tool. It also provides a clear alternative: 'Text-only fallback: use list_devices instead.'

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