inbox_dashboard

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Clearly states it returns a UIResource with an interactive HTML dashboard, and that it's read-only (no side effects mentioned). Also notes the dependency on mcp-ui-server. Could explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, but is sufficient.

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?

Concise and well-structured: opening sentence, bulleted list of features, note about requirements, and a clear return description. Every sentence adds information, no 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the interactive UI, its components, and the required client support. Could address error handling or what happens if UI is unavailable, but returns an error message as noted. Adequate for context.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining what the tool does without needing to clarify parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get an interactive dashboard view of your email inbox' and enumerates specific UI components (unread counts, recent emails, quick actions). Distinguishes from data-retrieving siblings like list_inbox_emails by emphasizing the interactive UIResource nature.

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?

Describes the tool's purpose as providing an interactive UI dashboard, implying it should be used when a visual/actionable interface is desired over raw data. Notes that a compatible MCP client is required, giving a precondition. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but context from siblings provides some differentiation.

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