status_dashboard

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effect of binding an HTTP server, the process-wide singleton behavior (re-running returns the existing URL rather than starting a second server), that secret values are never exposed, and that the return value is a URL string. Annotations are absent from the description's remit here except for safety hints, and this text adds substantial operational context.

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-loads the core action and resource, then layers usage routing, side effects, and return value in four dense sentences with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description names the return value (URL string), the singleton constraint, the binding side effect, and the secret-safety guarantee. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and set expectations.

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 100% and the port parameter is already fully documented in the schema (default, failure mode). The description only echoes 'on the requested port' without adding format or constraint meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Start a local web dashboard') plus exactly what it streams (KPIs, secret tables, manifest gaps, hooks, audit events, anomalies via SSE). It explicitly names the siblings it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from health_check/analyze_secrets without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('wants a richer visual surface than chat output') and names the alternatives ('prefer health_check / analyze_secrets for one-shot text summaries'). The routing decision is fully determined.

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