dashy_item

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.