dashboard.projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions writing HTML to ./temp, which is important side-effect context. However, it does not disclose whether the dashboard runs a local server (port parameter implies it), whether it is read-only or destructive, or any authentication or cleanup requirements. This is adequate but incomplete.

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, moderately dense sentence that covers purpose and a key side effect (HTML in ./temp). It is not verbose, though it packs multiple concepts together. One sentence is acceptable.

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?

Given 4 parameters with no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify the tool's behavior more thoroughly (e.g., what the dashboard contains, how the server is started/stopped, the temp file lifecycle). It is minimally complete but leaves many operational details ambiguous.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; for example, it doesn't explain how 'port' is used or that 'project_root' auto-detects project_id, though that is inferred from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an interactive dashboard for browsing and managing the knowledge base and project memory. The verb 'generate' and resource 'dashboard' are specific, and the side effect (HTML written to ./temp) is noted. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from numerous sibling tools like memory.list or kb.search, which also relate to browsing.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many memory and kb management siblings, the description lacks context for appropriate invocation (e.g., when to use dashboard.projects vs memory.list for browsing).

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