streamdeck_live_dashboard

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the auto-updating nature of the dashboard but says nothing about side effects: whether starting overwrites in-progress button layouts, whether stopping restors previous state, or what the status action reports. For a tool that toggles a live process, this is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core operation ('Start/stop') and then clarifies the resource and data sources. There is no filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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?

With six parameters, two required, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to fully understand action semantics, persistence, error conditions, or expected return values. The omission of the 'status' action and any behavioral consequences makes the description incomplete for safe invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents parameter meanings, defaults, and the action enum. The tool description adds some context by linking sources to 'Claude sessions, Git status, and running processes', but it does not clarify the 'status' action or add to the parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as managing a live dashboard that auto-updates Stream Deck buttons from live data sources, which is a distinct function from the sibling tools that handle static pages, profiles, and icons. The verb 'Start/stop' plus the resource 'live dashboard' makes the core purpose unambiguous. It does not mention the 'status' action, but the primary purpose is still fully clear.

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 implies this tool is for live auto-updating dashboards rather than static profile/page manipulation, and the sibling names make the distinction fairly evident. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions, so usage is left to inference.

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