botindex_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a cost ('$0.50'), which is useful behavioral context, but lacks other critical details: whether it's read-only or mutative, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens upon invocation (e.g., opens a dashboard vs. returns data). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 brief but could be more structured. It lists components in a dash-separated format and includes cost, which is efficient, but the phrasing 'Full premium dashboard — all agents, traces...' is slightly informal and could be clearer. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, but the cost mention feels tacked on without context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It names components but doesn't explain what the tool actually does (e.g., displays data, generates a report) or the output format. For a tool with potential complexity (implied by 'premium dashboard'), more behavioral and output context is needed.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of 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 clearly states the tool provides a 'full premium dashboard' with specific components listed (agents, traces, correlation matrices, etc.), giving a good sense of what resource it accesses. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'botindex_hl_correlation_matrix' or 'botindex_agent_trace' which might offer similar components individually, but the 'full dashboard' concept implies a comprehensive view.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools offering specific components (e.g., 'botindex_hl_correlation_matrix'), the description doesn't explain if this is for an overview, when it's preferred over individual tools, or any prerequisites. The mention of '$0.50' hints at cost but doesn't clarify usage context.

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