open_dashboard

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that the server binds to 127.0.0.1, is gated by a per-start token, and writes nothing, plus what the page renders. Auth surface, side-effect profile, and local-only scope are all covered.

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?

Action and return value are front-loaded in the first clause, and every following clause conveys real information (content shown, token, no writes, url handoff). It is somewhat dense as one long sentence, and the list of dashboard contents is near the edge of what the agent needs to know.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the return value (an address/url) and the required follow-through action (give it to the person). For a single-optional-flag tool that is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the flag is already documented there, but the description clarifies the operative behavior ('open_browser=true also opens it on this machine') and implies default-off usage. It adds interpretation rather than new syntax, so slightly above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open the read-only dashboard of this memory store and return its address') plus the scope of what the dashboard shows. No sibling tool covers a dashboard view, so an agent can immediately tell this is the human-facing inspection entry point.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case as 'for the person to view in a browser' and instructs to give the returned url to the person, which is clear context. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., versus get_contents / deep_check for programmatic inspection), so no exclusions are given.

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