show_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the dashboard is bound to 127.0.0.1 only, that it launches a browser, and that it will start the local dashboard if it is not already running (a side effect an agent should know about). It omits what the call returns or whether it blocks, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the invocation constraint follows, which is the correct ordering for an agent scanning for a trigger.

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?

For a simple, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the environment constraint, the side effect, and the usage trigger. The only real gap is what the caller receives back (a URL, a status, or nothing), which is minor here.

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 0% for the single 'repo' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the parameter via 'for this repo', leaving unclear whether the value defaults to the current repository or must be supplied explicitly, and what form a repo identifier takes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it opens LeanGate's live dashboard in the browser and shows the latest reports for the repo. This is plainly distinguishable from every sibling (verify_lean, minimize, prove_equivalent, check_dependency, etc.), which are all analysis operations rather than a UI-opening action.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call it only when the user asks to see the report.' That is a real when/when-not rule that prevents proactive invocation. It does not name an alternative tool for programmatic report access, so it stops short of a 5.

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