RRT Health Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that this renders a human-facing UI widget and is not meant to provide data values for programmatic reasoning, which is important for agent selection.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the dashboard contents in a compact list, and the second adds the crucial routing caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler language.

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, read-only, idempotent UI-rendering tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the widget contains, that it is for humans, and which sibling tools to use when the actual values are needed. No output schema is present, but the return value is a rendered UI widget, so detailed return-value documentation is not necessary.

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 has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; no parameter semantics are missing.

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 identifies a specific resource (health dashboard) and a concrete action ('Renders a UI widget'), then enumerates its contents: metric summary, health Ring, status chart, check cards, detail table. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from rrt_health and rrt_doctor by noting those are for data reasoning rather than visual display.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use this tool when a human needs to look at the UI widget, and use rrt_health / rrt_doctor instead when the values are needed for reasoning. This is a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use statement with named alternatives.

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