export_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the write target ('data/exports/dashboard.html') and that the output is read-only HTML, which is useful. It omits whether an existing file is overwritten, what permissions or project scope are required, and what the tool returns on success or failure.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and destination before the content list, with no filler. The colon-separated content list is efficient, though the final 'Open the file in a browser' clause would be better placed as explicit follow-up guidance.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it does cover destination and content, which is the core. It still leaves out overwrite semantics, the role of the optional projectId, and the distinction from the open_dashboard sibling, which are the gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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?

There is one optional parameter (projectId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it and the baseline is 3. However, the description never mentions projectId at all, so it adds no meaning about how scoping by project changes the exported content or what happens when it is omitted.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: writes a read-only HTML dashboard to a named path and enumerates the sections it contains (phases, gaps, musts covered by stories, RICE scores, flow diagrams). It distinguishes itself from export_backlog by listing dashboard-specific content, though the trailing 'Open the file in a browser' instruction blurs the line with the open_dashboard sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus open_dashboard, export_backlog, or project_summary. The only guidance is a post-step instruction ('Open the file in a browser'), which reads as an action instruction rather than a selection criterion, and it actually increases ambiguity about whether this tool opens the file or just writes it.

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