Export leadership dashboard

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

Annotations already disclose the write nature (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive and closed-world scope. The description adds real context beyond them: the artifact is self-contained HTML, it lands in the output folder, and the tool returns the file path. It omits what happens on filename collision (overwrite vs error) and whether the directory is created if absent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and artifact, then the output location and return value. The parenthetical list is dense but each item is a genuine dashboard section, so nothing is wasted.

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, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return value (the file path) and the artifact's contents. The remaining gap is file-handling semantics for `filename` — overwrite behavior and path resolution — which an agent would want before calling.

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 coverage is only 50%: `period` is fully documented in the schema with its accepted values and default, but `filename` has only a regex pattern and no prose. The description says nothing about either parameter — no default period behavior, no note on what happens if the filename is omitted or already exists — so it fails to compensate for the 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?

A specific verb (Write) plus a concrete resource (a self-contained HTML dashboard) with the exact contents enumerated: KPI tiles, wins/risks, MTTR, change failure, defect trends, DORA tiers, SLA breaches. The output destination (output folder) and return value (its path) are both stated, which cleanly separates it from the read-only sibling getters and from generate_executive_summary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'leadership dashboard' and the write-to-file behavior suggest this is the reporting/export path rather than a data-retrieval call. It never states when to choose it over generate_executive_summary or compare_periods, nor any prerequisite such as data sources being configured.

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