ouroboros_ac_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the behavioral output ('Shows which acceptance criteria passed, failed, or are flaky') and the display modes, which implies a read-only dashboard. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a non-mutating operation, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects, which are relevant for a tool in this family.

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, with three short sentences that each carry critical information: what the tool does, what it shows, and the available modes. There is no filler, and the most important verb-resource pair is front-loaded. This is efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and mode behaviors. It does not explain the return format or the dependency of 'ac_index' on 'mode', but the schema covers the latter. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though a bit more detail on output could improve it.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the 'full' mode as 'AC x Gen matrix' and 'ac' mode as 'single AC history', which enriches the semantics of the 'mode' parameter beyond the schema's brief description. This added value justifies a score above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Display per-AC pass/fail compliance dashboard across generations.' It specifies the verb 'Display' and the resource (AC compliance dashboard), and includes what it shows (passed, failed, flaky). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ouroboros_ac_tree_hud', so it lacks a direct differentiation.

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 when to use the tool (when needing a compliance dashboard) and provides mode guidance ('summary' default, 'full', 'ac'), but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools such as 'ouroboros_ac_tree_hud' or 'ouroboros_lineage_status'. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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