generate_html_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates an HTML dashboard but does not cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format details. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could be more structured by including brief usage hints or distinguishing features to enhance clarity.

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 generating a financial dashboard with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the output (e.g., HTML content structure, file generation), behavioral traits, and usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description does not provide sufficient information for effective tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters ('corp_codes', 'report_code', 'year'). The description does not add any additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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: 'HTML 형식의 재무 분석 대시보드를 생성합니다' (Generates a financial analysis dashboard in HTML format). It specifies the verb '생성합니다' (generates) and the resource '재무 분석 대시보드' (financial analysis dashboard), with the format 'HTML 형식' (HTML format). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'generate_financial_dashboard' or 'generate_financial_chart', which may have overlapping purposes, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 does not mention sibling tools such as 'analyze_financial_data', 'generate_comparison_table', or 'generate_financial_chart', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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