flexsim_dashboard_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses read-only semantics and that no results yields an empty list rather than an error, plus the internal filtering logic. It omits permission/auth requirements, performance/scale characteristics, and pagination expectations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose is good, but the middle sentence dumps implementation internals (model().subnodes, getname(classobject(o))) that an agent does not need to select or call the tool, and the text mixes Spanish and English awkwardly. Trimmed, it would be tighter.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, filtering behavior, and the empty-result edge case adequately. The remaining gap is only the missing sibling routing, which is minor here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'pattern' is an optional substring that filters against both name and class, with default '' meaning no filter — meaning beyond the bare schema's 'Pattern'/'maxLength' metadata, though it notes no syntax examples.

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 ('List') and resource ('chart/dashboard/recorder objects') and specifies the output form ('as JSON'). It is clear about scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like flexsim_chart_inspect or flexsim_list_tree.

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?

'Solo lectura (dual via run_script)' frames it as a read operation and hints at the inspect_model pattern, implying usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over flexsim_chart_inspect, flexsim_list_tree, or flexsim_library_list, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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