priority_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that multi-value filters accept list or string inputs, but does not reveal other important behaviors such as read-only nature, authentication requirements (though [Auth: V1+V2] is hinted), or how 'top items' are determined. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 very concise: one sentence plus metadata in brackets. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, resulting in incomplete guidance. It is appropriately short but could be improved by adding parameter explanations.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains the high-level purpose but omits parameter semantics, output format, and key behavioral details. The tool's complexity demands a more complete description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that multi-value filters can be list or string, which is a general note, but it does not explain any of the 7 specific parameters (e.g., project_ids, tags, limit). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 summarizes active tasks by priority with top items per bucket. The verb 'summarize' and resource 'active tasks by priority' are specific. It is distinguishable from related tools like query_tasks, tasks_of_today, and overdue_tasks.

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 lists related tools (query_tasks, tasks_of_today, overdue_tasks) in brackets, providing context for when this tool might be preferred. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions or prerequisites for using it.

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