Launch Dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool launches a web dashboard in a browser, which implies it's a read-only visual interface, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., opening browser tabs), authentication needs, or performance considerations. The description adds basic context but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by specific details on what the dashboard shows. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what the dashboard displays, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., whether it blocks until closed). The absence of an output schema is fine for a launch tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with one parameter ('port') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but since there is only one optional parameter with clear default, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but the minimal parameter count (1) and optional nature justify a slightly higher score.

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 the action ('Launch') and resource ('Memorix Web Dashboard'), specifying it opens in a browser and lists the visual components shown (knowledge graph, observations, retention scores, project stats). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on launching a dashboard interface rather than data operations like search, consolidation, or session management.

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 implies usage for accessing a visual interface with specific data views, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memorix_search or memorix_detail for direct data access. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving context somewhat open-ended.

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