open_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that this launches a browser dashboard for human review, returns a URL, and handles existing instances by returning the existing URL if already running. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like opening browser tabs or resource usage.

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 core purpose, followed by workflow guidance and behavioral details, all in three efficient sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose, usage context, and return value (URL). However, it lacks details on error handling or what happens if the path is invalid, leaving minor gaps in completeness for a tool with two parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (path and port). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Launch the osv-ui visual dashboard in the browser') and resource ('for human review'), distinguishing it from siblings like apply_fixes, get_fix_commands, and scan_project by emphasizing it's the 'HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP step' for review before applying fixes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('always offer this before applying fixes') and distinguishes it from alternatives by positioning it as a prerequisite step to apply_fixes, with clear context about its role in the workflow.

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