list_dashboards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it details the return structure (url_path, title, mode), flags the edge case of None for the default 'Overview' dashboard, and documents the storage/yaml mode semantics. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond what a mere schema would reveal.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line action statement followed by a compact Returns block. Every sentence earns its place, covering the output schema, the default-dashboard edge case, and the editability constraint in three short lines with zero filler.

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-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It goes beyond the minimum by explaining the semantic meaning of fields (None url_path, mode values) and the critical implication for editing, which fully equips an agent to use the results in downstream tool calls.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description needs to add nothing on parameter syntax. The description still adds value by explaining the meaning of the 'mode' values that would come back in results, which is appropriately assigned the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'List Home Assistant dashboards (Lovelace)' uses a specific verb+resource construction and adds the '(Lovelace)' disambiguator, which differentiates it from siblings like get_dashboard_config. The purpose is immediately clear and distinct from the other 30+ sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when this tool matters by noting that only 'storage'-mode dashboards can be edited via these tools, implicitly guiding when an agent would use this vs reading config. It lacks explicit 'use X instead' alternatives, but the mode distinction effectively frames the decision boundary for which dashboards are actionable.

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