conduyt_run_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses per-tile return shapes for KPI, chart, table, and pivot tiles, plus partial-failure behavior where failed tiles carry errors while others still return. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether filter overrides are full replacements or partial merges.

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 front-loaded with the action and then dense but useful output details, which are especially valuable because there is no output schema. The tile-output list is compact, though the long first sentence is somewhat dense to parse.

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 complex execution tool with nested filters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filter behavior, expected tile outputs, and partial failures well. It still leaves minor gaps around permission requirements and whether supplied filters merge with or fully replace existing board filters.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for filters: passing them overrides the board filters for this run only, without persisting changes. The dashboard id parameter remains unmentioned, but its meaning is reasonably implied by 'every tile of a dashboard'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run every tile of a dashboard'. It clearly implies execution rather than retrieving dashboard definitions, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as get_dashboard or run_report.

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?

It explains that supplied filters override board filters for this run only, which gives useful usage context. However, it does not state when to use this instead of get_dashboard, run_report, or dashboard, nor does it give exclusions.

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