export_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool returns the complete HTML as a string (important, since there is no output schema) and the HTML is self-contained. It does not mention size limits, latency, or whether large traces are truncated.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a short example, front-loaded with the primary purpose and return type. Slight redundancy between the inline example and the schema example costs it a point.

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 export tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context (full HTML string, self-contained). Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent, though noting output size or truncation behavior would complete it.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents trace_id and its example. The description's example payload repeats, rather than extends, what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (generate) and resource (self-contained HTML dashboard) plus the two visual features it contains (error highlighting, latency waterfall). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like export_otel, export_compliance_log, and get_trace_summary.

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?

Usage is implied by the trace-scoped purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as export_otel for machine-readable output or get_trace_summary for a quick view. An agent must infer the choice from the purpose line alone.

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