inbox_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return type (UIResource with specific URI), the interactive content (visual cards, filterable list, buttons), and error handling ('error message if UI is unavailable'). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of a dashboard implies no 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by bullet points and a requirement note. While it is slightly more verbose than some minimal descriptions, every part adds value and no sentences are wasted.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the return value (UIResource with details), contents of the dashboard, requirement for UI support, and error handling. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and no additional parameter description is necessary. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no further clarification is needed.

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 clearly states the tool gets an interactive dashboard view of the email inbox, listing specific components like unread counts, recent emails, and quick actions. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which offer a dashboard view.

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 description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when an interactive UI dashboard is desired) and explicitly mentions the requirement for the mcp-ui-server package and compatible MCP client. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools.

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