team_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral profile by labeling the data as a 'compact live dashboard snapshot' and specifying the included components, aligning with the read-only intent. This is value beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing freshness or performance details.

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 that front-loads the core action and object. It uses a list to convey the dashboard contents without padding, so every word earns its place. It could be even more informative with a short note on output shape, but it remains concise.

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 only one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description gives a reasonable mental model by listing the returned components. However, it lacks any clarification about response format, the meaning of 'result preview', whether the data is truly live, or how to handle errors. These gaps are moderate 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required team_id parameter, but the description does not explain the parameter's format, purpose, or how it relates to the dashboard. The only implicit hint is the word 'team' in the tool name and description, which is insufficient when the schema provides no documentation.

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 that the tool returns a dashboard snapshot and enumerates its key contents (team progress, agent states, recent events, messages, result preview). It is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_team or get_run.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose team_dashboard over get_team, list_teams, or get_run. There are no scenario hints, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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