generate_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it reveals the ~1.1MB output size, the default 72h download short-link delivery with base64 fallback, and the gatekeeper validation that rejects non-native/self-assembled reports. It does not cover permissions, processing duration, or failure/error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and output format come first, then delivery semantics, then the ①② usage enumeration. Nearly every clause earns its place (size, offline capability, gatekeeper rule), though the single long paragraph is information-heavy and slightly hard to parse at a glance.

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 complex nested-object tool with no output schema, the description is well covered: it explains input combinations, the validation rule, the returned artifact and both delivery channels. Remaining gaps are secondary details such as runtime expectations or auth requirements, which are not strictly needed to call it 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by tying parameters to the two usage patterns (input = five categories or at minimum project_basic_info.txt; reports = the 11 native report files; return_mode = base64 default vs url recommended). It clarifies the valid input combinations rather than restating field types.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it generates a financial dashboard (dynamic cash-flow演绎 + dual-caliber solvency analysis) delivered as a single self-contained HTML file with named sidebar sections and inlined ECharts. This is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from generate_ppt_html / generate_word_report without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly lays out two mutually exclusive usage modes (① recommended: full five-category input files letting the platform compute the standard 11 reports; ② reports: E投 native 11 reports + project_basic_info.txt), and warns that hand-assembled simplified tables are rejected by the gatekeeper. It also advises the recommended return_mode for external clients, leaving essentially nothing to inference.

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