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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that dashy_replace_config performs a complete overwrite, not a merge, and that get defaults to conf.yml. It does not mention authentication or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 well-structured with a brief intro followed by bullet-like sub-operations. Each sentence provides actionable information without redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse and apply.

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?

The description covers all three operations, their parameters, and critical overwrite behavior. Since an output schema is present, return values are handled structurally. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or prerequisite information, but overall the tool is sufficiently described for an agent to invoke 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 only defines a generic `arguments` object with no structure, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying the expected arguments for each operation (e.g., filename default, config object required), adding substantial meaning beyond the schema. The `config` object is partially specified (pageInfo, appConfig, sections, pages).

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 identifies the tool as handling Dashy config operations and lists three specific operations (get, list, replace) with precise verbs and the target resource (Dashy config files). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashy_item or dashy_section, though differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 explains how to use the tool by passing an `operation` and an `arguments` dict, and each sub-operation includes parameter details (e.g., filename default). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the overwrite warning.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behaviors: update performs a shallow-merge and only changes given fields; items require a title; lookups can be by index or exact name/title. It omits details like error handling, permissions, or irreversible consequences of delete, but covers the central behavioral nuances.

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 well-structured: a brief intro explaining the dispatcher pattern followed by a bullet list of operations, each with a concise summary. Every line adds semantic value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 complexity as a multi-operation dispatcher, the description covers all five operations, their parameters, key constraints, and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the correct sub-operation.

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 only lists `operation` and an untyped `arguments` object, offering no parameter-level meaning. The description compensates fully by giving explicit function signatures for each operation, naming parameters (sid, item, iid, filename, patch), and explaining what `item` requires and what `patch` does.

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 identifies the tool as a dispatcher for Dashy item operations, enumerating five specific sub-operations (add, delete, get, list, update) with clear verb-resource pairs. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing solely on items, not config, key, or section operations.

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 explains how to invoke the tool (pass an operation and matching arguments) and details each operation's purpose, effectively guiding which sub-operation to choose. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct users to sibling tools for non-item operations, so alternative guidance is only implied by sibling names.

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

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

The description explicitly discloses that dashy_set_key performs a 'complete replacement of that key, not a merge,' which is crucial behavior beyond a simple 'set' operation. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is essential. It also clarifies that get/set operate on 'top-level config keys,' setting expectations about scope.

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 compact, with two bullet-like lines per operation. The opening 'dashy key operations on Dashy' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operations and their parameters. It could mention error handling or return values, but the non-merge behavior is a key completeness factor. Sibling tools are not addressed, but the scope is clear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each operation's parameters: key, filename, value, and the allowed top-level keys (pageInfo, appConfig, sections, pages). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema which only shows operation and arguments.

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 opens with 'dashy key operations on Dashy,' which is vague, but then specifies two operations: 'dashy_get_key' to get a top-level key (pageInfo, appConfig, sections, or pages) and 'dashy_set_key' to replace it. This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the 'top-level' scope helps distinguish it from sibling tools, although it doesn't explicitly reference them.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like dashy_config or dashy_section. The description only says 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters,' which is an invocation instruction, not a usage guideline.

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

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the schema: deletion removes all items, update uses shallow-merge with wholesale replacement of nested arrays, and sections are identified by index or exact name. With no annotations, this level of detail carries the safety and side-effect profile well.

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 front-loaded with the dispatch pattern and uses a clean bullet list for the four operations. Each line earns its place by adding unique information, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

The description covers all operations, parameter nuances, and behavioral edge cases, making it self-contained for selection and invocation. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and none are omitted. It leaves no major gaps for a dispatcher tool of this type.

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%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It lists each operation's parameters (e.g., 'section requires a name; common keys: name, icon, items, displayData') and explains the `arguments` dict. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it handles 'dashy section operations' and enumerates four specific sub-operations (add, delete, get, update) with distinct actions. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashy_item and dashy_key.

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?

It explains the dispatch pattern (pass operation and arguments dict) and provides context for each operation, such as 'by index or exact name' and 'shallow-merge patch'. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the scoping to sections is clear.

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