showDashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it states 'Writes nothing and has no coach notes', defines the return payload (page path, data digest, page settings), and explains the preset-page fallback when no page exists. It does not mention any authentication or data-source prerequisites, which is the remaining gap.

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-loads the core action ('Shows the training dashboard in the chat') before qualifications, and every sentence carries information (defaults, return values, sibling routing). It is dense but not padded, though the run-on parenthetical with backticks and line breaks makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, it explains the return values and both MCP-App and non-MCP-App behavior, which is close to complete. Only the lack of permission/auth prerequisites keeps it from being fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds light context (default page path under the data dir, relative paths inside the data dir, weeks of new data) but largely restates what the schema already documents, including the default of 12 and max of 52.

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?

Names a specific verb (shows) and resource (training dashboard) plus the precise rendering context (in the chat, in MCP Apps assistants). It also distinguishes itself from writeDashboard by noting that non-MCP-App assistants only see the reply and must use writeDashboard to persist a file.

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?

Explicitly states the condition that selects this tool (assistants that show MCP Apps) and the alternative for the other case (writeDashboard writes the page as a file). The routing decision is fully spelled out rather than inferred.

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