get_executive_dashboard

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by explaining the dashboard is a self-contained HTML file produced by a CLI command, which suggests what the tool returns. It does not go deeper into output format or side effects, but with annotations and an output schema present, the additional behavior disclosure is adequate.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then adds one relevant detail about the dashboard being a generated HTML file. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 parameterless, read-only getter with an output schema available, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, explains its nature, and points to the CLI command that generates it. It could briefly mention what 'dashboard info' contains, but the output schema covers return structure, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the description does not need to explain any inputs. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('executive dashboard info'), and adds a specific detail that the dashboard is a self-contained HTML file generated by the CLI. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pilot_status or get_diagnostics because it names the executive dashboard specifically, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the generated executive dashboard HTML file. Mentioning the CLI command 'enterprise export dashboard --output file.html' gives useful context about the artifact's origin. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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