UI Dashboard Composer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'creates' (implying a write operation) and 'real-time data,' but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to ensure safe and effective use by an agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the complexity of creating dashboards with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and output information. With no annotations and rich sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'dashboardTitle,' 'widgets,' and 'layout,' including enums for 'layout' and widget 'type.' The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters, though the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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: 'Creates comprehensive KPI dashboards with charts and real-time data.' It specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('KPI dashboards'), and mentions key features ('charts and real-time data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kpi-dashboard-builder' or 'ui-report-builder,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'kpi-dashboard-builder,' 'ui-report-builder,' and 'business-intelligence-insights,' there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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