render_dashboard

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes output format and optional features (improvements card). However, lacks details on error handling, side effects (file writing), and default behavior when output_path is omitted. Acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise (~150 words) with a clear front-loaded purpose statement and a structured Args section. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 1 required param, the description covers the tool's function, inputs, and outputs adequately. It mentions return type {html, bytes, output_path}. Minor gap: does not clarify behavior when output_path is absent (presumably returns HTML string only).

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%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter's purpose and source (e.g., report from `analyze_reviews`, improvements from `extract_listing_improvements`). Adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Description clearly states it renders a VOC report as a standalone HTML dashboard. Specifies output format (single-file HTML) and lists included sections (sentiment bar, panels, executive summary, optimization card). Distinguishes from sibling analysis tools by being a rendering step.

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?

Implicitly indicates usage after obtaining a report from sibling tools like `analyze_reviews`. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear. Could be improved by stating prerequisites (e.g., 'Use after analysis tools').

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