show_all_feeds_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions UI aspects ('Modern React UI with dark theme') which are behavioral traits, but fails to disclose critical operational details: whether this is a read-only view, if it requires authentication, how data is refreshed, or if it's interactive. For a dashboard tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences. The first sentence covers the core functionality comprehensively. The second adds UI context that might be relevant for user experience. While slightly verbose with 'Modern React UI with dark theme', this could help agents understand the visual nature of the output.

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 the complexity of a dashboard tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'stats' includes, what columns are sortable, how XML feed links are presented, or what the dashboard output looks like. For a tool that presumably returns rich visual data, more context about the return format and capabilities is needed.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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's purpose: 'Display a comprehensive dashboard showing all feeds with stats, sortable columns, and XML feed links.' It specifies the verb ('display'), resource ('dashboard showing all feeds'), and key features (stats, sortable columns, XML links). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'show_feed_dashboard' or 'list_feeds', which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this dashboard should be used instead of 'list_feeds' for a simple list or 'show_feed_dashboard' for a single feed view. There's no context about prerequisites, user roles, or typical scenarios for dashboard access.

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