داشبورد (شمارنده‌ها)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them by spelling out the counter categories returned, which matters given there is no output schema; it omits auth/permission needs and whether counts are scoped to the caller.

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, no filler, with the core identity (per-workspace counters) front-loaded and the enumerated scope immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by describing what the payload contains (the counter categories) and the framing of the result. It is nearly complete; only the per-workspace grouping mechanics/return shape are left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 names a specific resource (per-workspace counters) and enumerates exactly what is counted: unread letters, unread chats, today's/overdue tasks and meetings. This clearly separates it from list/get siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly aggregate-sounding mizito_reports.

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?

"Good for a quick 'what needs my attention' overview across workspaces" gives a concrete use context. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use it or pointing at an alternative sibling (e.g. mizito_reports or mizito_calendar), so it is clear-but-not-exhaustive.

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