mcp-dashboards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what the tool produces ('shows flows between nodes with width proportional to value') and the conceptual question it answers ('Where does it go?'), which helps the agent understand the visualization behavior beyond the basic safety guarantees.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the tool's core function, the second provides usage context and differentiation. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no words.

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 visualization tool with comprehensive annotations and detailed input schema, the description provides appropriate context about the chart type's purpose and typical use cases. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the agent doesn't know what format the rendered chart will be returned in (image, URL, HTML, etc.), which is important for a rendering tool.

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?

With 86% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents most parameters well. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, though it does provide the conceptual framework ('flows between nodes') that helps understand the data parameter structure. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('render', 'shows') and resource ('sankey flow diagram'), plus distinctive characteristics ('width proportional to value', 'flows between nodes'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming the specific chart type and providing domain examples (budget flows, user journeys) that other chart tools wouldn't cover.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Great for budget flows, user journeys, energy transfers, conversion funnels with multiple paths'), which implicitly distinguishes it from other chart types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different visualization needs.

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