get_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only snapshot via 'Get' and 'summary,' and 'real-time' adds useful freshness context. However, it does not disclose output shape, failure behavior, or whether the dashboard data is aggregated or raw.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The resource ('dashboard') and primary concepts ('real-time summary,' 'server health, players, and performance') are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. Still, given the large sibling set and the lack of return-format or selection guidance, an agent would benefit from additional context about what the returned summary contains and when this tool is the right choice.

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 schema already documents the only parameter fully with a clear description, so the parameter semantics burden is already met. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('dashboard'), and specifies the content as a real-time summary of server health, players, and performance. It is distinguishable from many siblings, though it overlaps somewhat with get_status, get_players, and get_server_diagnostics in scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer get_dashboard over the many related inspection tools such as get_status, get_server_diagnostics, or audit_performance. The description implies a general dashboard use case but provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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