open_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose two real traits: the server binds to 127.0.0.1 only, and the call returns a URL. It omits what happens if the dashboard is already running, whether the process persists after the call returns, and why the month scoping matters — gaps that matter for a tool with side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, which is good. The second sentence leans on unexplained context ('Sanne', decisions.csv) that an agent cannot act on, so part of the text does not earn 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the single return value (a URL) plus the localhost restriction. But for a server-launching tool with two optional, undocumented parameters, it says nothing about the dashboard's contents, the default folder, or lifecycle behavior — leaving real operational questions unanswered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents only 'month', giving the expected 'YYYY-MM' format and the 'all' sentinel — though that conflicts with the schema's null default, leaving ambiguity about whether null means all. The 'folder' parameter is not mentioned at all, so half the inputs remain opaque.

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 ('Start the local dashboard') plus the return value ('return its URL'), so the action is unmistakable. It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling (record_decision in particular), and the follow-on sentence about 'Sanne' and decisions.csv blurs rather than sharpens the purpose.

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 clause 'Sanne decides there or in the chat; both land in the same decisions.csv' implies this is the UI-based counterpart to the chat/record_decision path, which is a usable hint. But it never states when an agent should open the dashboard versus calling a sibling directly, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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