sps_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It outlines the main operations (scanning, generating, writing) but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing files in output_dir or whether output_dir must pre-exist. This is a moderate disclosure, lacking some behavioral depth.

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 well-structured with a summary, process details, and a parameter list. It is efficient but contains potential typos ('fuf' and 'fue') that slightly detract from clarity. Otherwise, no 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 tool with 2 simple parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow and parameter semantics adequately. However, it omits the return value (if any) and does not mention whether output_dir is created automatically, which would make it more complete.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: sps_dir is the directory containing .inp files, and output_dir is where reports and index.html go. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's title-only fields.

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 generates a sequential prediction (SPS) dashboard for all series in a directory, with a specific workflow (scan .inp files, generate HTML reports, write index.html). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_forecast or full_report.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for batch processing all series in a directory, implying it should be used when you need a collective dashboard rather than a single-series report. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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