conditions_dashboard

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It describes the interactive and visual nature (cyan card, teal border, danger alert) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects. This is sufficient for a non-destructive tool but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 efficient sentences: first gives the core purpose, second elaborates on key features. No redundancy or filler. Well front-loaded.

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?

No output schema and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., HTML, JSON, data). For a dashboard tool that likely renders something, this is a gap. However, the description clearly lists what is displayed, which is somewhat complete for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 100% with a single parameter whose description provides examples (Bern, Thun, Olten). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, only referencing 'city' indirectly. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states it shows an interactive dashboard of current Aare conditions, lists specific displayed elements (water temperature, flow rate, safety level, etc.), and uses the specific resource 'Aare conditions'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flow_card or temperature_card which focus on single metrics.

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 implies it is for an overview or summary of conditions but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like get_current_conditions or forecast_view. The context from sibling names helps, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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