Open the live build dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses where the dashboard runs (player's own PC), what appears automatically (evaluate_build, compare_builds, optimize_build, import, upgrade checks plus a best-so-far board), the two-way interaction model, and that dashboard_feedback surfaces pending input. Idempotency of repeat calls is also stated, which is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations would otherwise supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its purpose, and the long middle clause is dense but each element (auto-captured tools, notes, feedback loop) is load-bearing. It is a single long paragraph that could be split for scanability, but there is little outright waste.

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 zero-required-parameter session tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, side effects, the feedback channel, and repeat-call semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description implies the browser-opening behavior and mentions a session context, but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Open a live dashboard in the player's browser") and immediately scopes what the dashboard contains, which cleanly separates it from siblings like dashboard_post (which feeds notes in) and dashboard_feedback (which reads replies out). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the 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?

It gives explicit timing guidance — "Open it at the start of a build or character session, and tell the player it's there" — and explains the repeat-call behavior ("Calling it again reopens the same dashboard"). The related sibling tools are named and their roles clarified, though there is no explicit when-not-to-use or a hard "use X instead" routing statement.

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