atlas_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Creates interactive visualizations' and produces an HTML dashboard, implying a write output and read/analysis of the project. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or whether it modifies the project, and it lacks details on default behaviors (e.g., which metrics are included by default).

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences deliver the core purpose and key features without unnecessary fluff or repetition. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's function.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview of the tool's capabilities. However, it lacks essential contextual information such as default behavior, prerequisites (e.g., project structure, test data), how the output file is delivered or used, and any constraints of the analysis. Given the tool's complexity, a bit more detail would be valuable.

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 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, each with a clear explanation. The description complements the schema by listing the high-level metric categories (complexity, coverage, etc.) that map to the include* boolean parameters, but it does not add deeper semantics or usage details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Generate'), a concrete deliverable ('HTML dashboard'), and enumerates the included metrics (complexity trends, test coverage, dependency graphs, security audit, performance hotspots, git stats). This differentiates it from more specialized sibling tools like atlas_security or atlas_git, making it unmistakably an aggregate dashboard generator.

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?

The description implies usage for creating a comprehensive dashboard with multiple code metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many specialized siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is inferable but not directly demonstrated.

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