dashboard

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' confirms a read operation. It adds context about the dashboard's components but does not disclose other behavioral traits like potential data freshness, size limits, or auth requirements. The description does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that uses precise wording and lists components. No fluff or unnecessary details; every word 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?

For a parameterless dashboard retrieval tool, the description sets clear expectations about the content. Without an output schema, it compensates by listing the dashboard sections. Missing details like response format are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description's mention of 'full dashboard' implies no filtering is needed—appropriate and sufficient. It avoids redundancy and adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 returns the full ThumbGate dashboard and lists its components (Harness Score, gate stats, etc.), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'org_dashboard' by specifying 'full' and the ThumbGate context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'gate_stats' or 'org_dashboard'. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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