team_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. While the tool appears safe, the lack of any behavioral context beyond 'view' is insufficient.

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, concise sentence. Every word is purposeful: '查看团队当前状态：可用专家、模型配置、最近活动'. It is front-loaded with the key action and list items, earning its space.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does (shows status with three listed categories). It is complete enough for a simple dashboard tool, though it could mention if the output is a summary or 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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The baseline for no params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly reflects that no input is required.

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's purpose: '查看团队当前状态' meaning 'view team current status'. It lists specific items: available experts, model configuration, recent activities. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_expert or code_review, which have different scopes.

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 use for getting an overview of team status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no exclusion or caution about prerequisites, making usage guidance minimal but not misleading.

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