dashy_config

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.