inbox_dashboard

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a UIResource with an interactive HTML dashboard, identifies dependencies, and explains the user interface elements. This is good transparency for a read-only interactive tool.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points listing dashboard components. First sentence clearly states the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value—prerequisites, return type, and user preferences are included succinctly. No wasted words.

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 description explains the interactive dashboard output, its components, and dependencies. Given no parameters and no output schema, it covers the essential context. Could mention non-UI fallback or error handling explicitly, but overall 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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed.

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?

Clearly states it returns an interactive dashboard view of the email inbox, listing specific UI components (unread counts, recent emails, quick actions, search). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_inbox_overview or list_inbox_emails by focusing on an interactive UI rather than plain data.

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?

Describes the interactive dashboard context and mentions prerequisites (mcp-ui-server package, compatible client). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the use case is clear and distinct from sibling tools that handle specific actions.

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