show_feed_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'interactive dashboard' which implies a visual/UI component rather than data return, but doesn't describe what 'interactive' means, whether it opens a browser, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens after display. For a 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clearly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool's moderate complexity (dashboard display with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies what the tool does but lacks crucial context about how it behaves, what 'interactive' entails, and how it differs from the similar 'show_all_feeds_dashboard' sibling 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'feedId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('display') and resource ('interactive dashboard for monitoring a job feed'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_feed' or 'list_feeds' that provide data rather than visualizations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'show_all_feeds_dashboard', which appears to be a similar dashboard 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 is preferable to data-focused tools like 'get_feed' or 'get_stats_overview', nor does it clarify the relationship with 'show_all_feeds_dashboard' (single feed vs. all feeds).

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