open_dashboard

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond it: the scoping ('allowed directories or home folder'), the exact fields surfaced, and that Verify/Summary actions are exposed from the view. It stops short of explaining what those buttons do or whether opening triggers any computation.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the core resource ('local git projects') is front-loaded. The enumerated fields add value rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description covers what the dashboard shows and where it searches, but leaves the limit semantics and the effect of the Verify/Summary buttons unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that exposes actions.

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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description; in fact 'all local git projects' is in mild tension with a default limit of 30. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a concrete verb ('Show') and resource (all local git projects) and enumerates the payload shown: branch, uncommitted changes, last verification verdict, plus interactive Verify/Summary buttons. It reads as a distinct dashboard surface, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with find_repos or verify_task.

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?

There is no statement of when to open the dashboard versus siblings like find_repos (list repos), run_relevant_checks, or verify_task. The 'interactive dashboard' framing implies a human-facing overview, but no context or exclusions are given.

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