launch_local_dashboard

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

Annotations are all false (not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive), providing minimal safety context. The description adds the useful detail that it serves on loopback (localhost), which is a behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose whether the server blocks, how to stop it, or what happens on relaunch—significant gaps for a server-launching tool with openWorldHint=false.

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?

A single concise sentence that captures the essence of the tool. While it's minimal, it's front-loaded and without waste. It doesn't elaborate on the 3 parameters or provide examples, which would add value but would also lengthen it. Appropriately sized for a simple concept.

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?

The tool has an output schema (which may document return values) and 3 params with defaults. Given it's a server-launching tool in a run-management ecosystem, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no behavioral notes on blocking/stopping behavior, an agent may not know how to interact with the running server or clean up after launch—a meaningful gap for a state-changing tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. While it doesn't describe each parameter explicitly, the default values in the schema (host=127.0.0.1, port=0, run_id=null) combined with 'loopback' serving context make the intent reasonably inferable. The port=0 default (ephemeral port) and run_id=null suggest auto-selection behavior, which is reasonable to infer. Since 0 required params and defaults provided, the description adds adequate context.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Serve the local dashboard assets and JSON APIs on loopback'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_dashboard_report (which retrieves data) by indicating this is a serving/launching operation. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it does but doesn't mention when it's appropriate, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool like get_dashboard_report might be preferred. The 'local' and 'loopback' wording implies development/local usage but this is implied, not stated.

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