Open Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a path, which is a read-only behavior, but does not explain how 'latest' is determined or what happens if no dashboard exists. It provides minimal extra behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is not padded with unnecessary details. However, it could have included a brief note on the 'tool' parameter without losing conciseness, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description covers the return value (a path) and the use case, but it omits any explanation of the optional 'tool' parameter, how it influences the result, or what values are valid (e.g., tool names). With no output schema, the agent needs more guidance on both parameters and potential error conditions, making this incomplete for a correct invocation.

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 50%: only 'path' is explained ('Absolute path to the repository root'). The optional 'tool' parameter has no description, and the description text only says 'for a tool' without clarifying how it is specified or what values are expected. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation of 'tool', leaving the agent guessing about its purpose and valid inputs.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns the filesystem path to the latest visual HTML dashboard. It distinguishes from siblings like list_reports (which likely lists dashboards) by focusing on retrieving the path of the latest one for a given tool. The phrase 'ready to open in a browser or attach to a PR' adds practical context without ambiguity.

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 when to use it ('ready to open in a browser or attach to a PR') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools like list_reports or compare_reports, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.

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