generate_dashboard

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

The description discloses that it generates an HTML file and opens it in a browser, indicating a create-and-display behavior. Without annotations, this provides reasonable transparency, though it does not mention whether the output persists or is temporary.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and output format. Every word adds value.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and how to access the result. A minor improvement could clarify if the HTML is saved to a file, but the current description is sufficient.

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 are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist. Baseline 4 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool generates a visual HTML architecture dashboard with specific components (layers, dependency graph, tech stack, class overview) and opens in browser. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which deal with project state, cloning, searching, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the tool's purpose is self-explanatory given its distinct function compared to siblings. A score of 3 reflects the lack of explicit usage context.

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