os_apps_render_statistics_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a generic 'Open' action, offering no insight into what parameters affect output, what the dashboard displays, or any side effects. It neither contradicts nor supplements the annotations.

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 short sentence, technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place because it conveys almost no decision-relevant information, similar to the 'Process' calibration example.

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 five undocumented optional parameters, no enums, no parameter descriptions, and a family of sibling render widgets, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot know what inputs to provide or what output to expect, despite the presence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the five optional parameters (dataset, measure, areaCodes, contentMode) are completely undocumented. The description mentions none of them and provides zero meaning beyond the schema's bare property names. The description carries the full burden to explain these parameters and fails entirely.

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 'Open the MCP-Apps statistics dashboard widget' is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name (render_statistics_dashboard). It uses a vague verb ('Open') and does not distinguish this widget tool from its sibling render tools like os_apps_render_boundary_explorer or os_apps_render_route_planner. It fails to state what the dashboard actually does or shows.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, usage scenarios, or exclusions, leaving an agent with no way to decide between this and the numerous other render and query tools.

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