不動産ダッシュボード

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it opens an MCP Apps UI, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations, but overall adds minimal additional transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a Japanese translation. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes key details without extraneous text.

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 that the tool has 7 parameters (0 required), high schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose. It could elaborate on what the dashboard displays, but the schema and output schema fill in details.

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 86%, so most parameters are documented. The description does not add meaning significantly beyond the schema descriptions. For example, parameter 'mode' is already described with enum values in the schema.

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 opens a visualization dashboard with 2D map or PLATEAU 3D view, and mentions MCP Apps UI. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are analysis and search tools) by being the only dashboard opener.

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 usage for visual dashboard access but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied.

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