view_report_builder_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (all section rows plus one synthesized insight) and access scope, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects. The word 'view' implies no mutation, but it is not explicit, and there is no mention of error behavior or performance. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and then adding access conditions. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return format (all rows plus insight) and access requirements. It does not discuss error cases or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple view tool. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention what happens if the report is not found.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (report_id). The tool description does not explain what report_id is or how to obtain it, beyond the context that it identifies a report. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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: viewing a saved multi-section report_builder report, including all rows and a synthesized insight. It specifies the exact resource (report_builder report) and distinguishes from siblings like view_custom_query_dashboard by emphasizing 'report_builder' and the insight synthesis. The access conditions further clarify scope.

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 access conditions (draft owned or published with Readonly access) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report or view_custom_query_dashboard. It implies usage for report_builder reports but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions. The access note is useful but not comparative.

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