compare_dashboards

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 by explaining that comparison scope depends on whether the inputs are open files or .pbix paths. It discloses the compared artifact types in each mode but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or error handling.

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 and compact. Every sentence adds useful information: purpose, parameter forms, mode-dependent comparison scope, and use cases.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers the two input forms and what gets compared in each mode. It is slightly incomplete because it does not resolve mixed input types or specify error behavior for invalid paths or non-open files.

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 0%, so the description must define left and right, and it does: each can be an open file name from list_open_files or a .pbix path. It leaves a minor ambiguity about whether mixing an open file and a .pbix path is allowed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Diff two dashboards." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like audit_dashboard or review_file by focusing on comparison and naming the exact objects that can be diffed.

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 gives clear usage context ("backup vs current, or before/after a change") and points to list_open_files for resolving open-file names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative comparison tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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