get_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the call aggregates today, inbox count, upcoming, and overdue into a single dashboard, and that it is an efficiency-oriented read operation. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but 'Get' and the dashboard framing make the non-mutating nature clear enough.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action and payload stated first. The usage rationale and parameter documentation each earn their place with no redundant 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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what the dashboard contains and how the parameter behaves. Minor gaps like timezone handling or the exact shape of response fields are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully documents the only parameter: 'upcoming_days: How many days ahead to include in upcoming (default 3).' This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's title and default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a complete daily dashboard in one call' and enumerates what it includes (today, inbox count, upcoming, overdue). It is clearly differentiated from sibling getters like get_context and get_project_health by being an aggregation tool.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'for morning standup / plan-day' and says it replaces 4+ separate MCP calls. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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