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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral context by specifying the returned payload (current session with ID, total time, goal, and last completed sessions with their IDs), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One compact sentence with the main payload front-loaded and the history behavior trailing as a qualifier — no padding. It could be marginally clearer if the history clause were a distinct sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only dashboard tool with one optional boolean flag and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (session ID, total time, goal, historical sessions). An agent can invoke it correctly; only the exact format of 'objectif' and the count of historical sessions remain unspecified, which are minor gaps.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the effect of history ('les dernières sessions terminées (avec leurs ID)'), adding only the detail that returned sessions carry IDs, which is marginal on top of the schema text 'true : ajoute les dernières sessions terminées'.

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 and resource ('Voir le chrono du jour') and enumerates exactly what is shown: the in-progress session with its ID, total time, and goal, plus completed sessions when history is set. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling dashboards such as dandori_budget_dashboard or dandori_unplug_dashboard, but the subject matter is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'du jour' (today only) and by the conditional 'avec history', which tells the agent when the extra data appears. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer another tool (e.g., dandori_daily_summary or dandori_control_timer) and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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