Dashboard information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific return content (URL and availability) but does not disclose prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., what happens when the dashboard is unavailable). This adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no filler or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and easy 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 simple parameterless read-only tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (URL and availability). It could mention prerequisites like 'requires a running game session' or define 'availability', but given the simplicity and annotations, it is largely complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear object: 'the private local dashboard URL and its current availability.' This is precise and differentiates the tool from siblings like status or get_game_info, which do not mention a dashboard.

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 its usage context—when you need the local dashboard URL or its availability—but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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