Get Overview

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

The readOnly and non-destructive annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that it aggregates multiple current actionable sections and uses delta tracking, though it does not mention freshness, caching, or whether sections may be empty.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the dashboard purpose and content scope, followed by a concise usage recommendation. There is no redundant or filler 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?

For a composite dashboard tool with no output schema, the description does a good job listing the returned sections and framing it as a starting point. It leaves minor gaps around how the optional term_id affects the dashboard and whether some sections may be absent.

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 sole optional term_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its YYYYN format and example. The description does not mention term_id or explain the default term behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema here.

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 this is an aggregate dashboard and enumerates the specific content it surfaces: schedule, per-course new items with deltas, MIO messages, evals, notifications, and college news. This distinguishes it from the many granular sibling tools like get-schedule or get-mio-messages.

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 gives a clear usage recommendation: 'Best starting point to see what needs attention.' However, it does not explicitly name when not to use it or route to specific sibling tools for narrower needs.

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