Auto-Build Dashboard

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

Annotations indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds context by explaining the automatic discovery and creation process. It does not mention potential duplicate dashboards due to non-idempotency, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 structured: a one-sentence intro, a bullet-style list of focus modes, and a clear arg list. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool of this complexity (4 parameters, multiple focus modes, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to configure it, and what is returned. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enhances this by explaining defaults (dashboardName defaults to '{AppName} - Auto Dashboard', timeRangeMinutes defaults to 60) and the focus enum options with use-case descriptions. This adds value beyond the schema.

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: 'automatically build a complete monitoring dashboard for an application'. It details what it discovers (tiers, BTs, health rules) and the outcome (multi-section dashboard), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like appd_create_dashboard that likely create empty dashboards.

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 focus modes and default values, giving context on when to use different configurations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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