Get Dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It discloses the presence of a 'render field with tiered rendering guidance' and instructs to check it before composing a reply. This is valuable context, though it does not address potential side effects or authentication requirements. Overall, it provides good transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and enumerate contents, then add a critical note about the render field. Every sentence serves a purpose with no repetition or filler.

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's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what the response contains. It mentions the key data fields and the special render field. It does not elaborate on response structure, but that is not required without an output schema. The description is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it restates the window and timezone but not with extra detail. Score at baseline due to full schema coverage.

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 gets a CRM dashboard summary and enumerates the specific data included (total customers by type and phase, overdue tasks, recent interactions, upcoming tasks). The term 'dashboard summary' distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific entities like get_customer or get_task.

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 implies usage when a broad overview of CRM metrics is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or suggest alternative tools. The context of sibling tools (e.g., get_feed_briefing, get_task_summary) provides indirect differentiation, but the description could be more explicit.

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