anon_get_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: the membership/auth requirement and permission-based output trimming (summary.modules.finance is null without finance permission). That tells the agent why fields may be absent. It stops short of describing cost, caching, or the full module set returned.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the prerequisite, then the permission-trimming behavior, then the endpoint and the projectId warning. Nearly every sentence carries information; the raw GET path line is the only mildly redundant element.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does partially deliver by naming summary.modules.finance and its null-on-no-permission behavior. Yet it leaves the aggregate contents and the distinction from anon_get_dashboard_summary unexplained, which an agent needs to choose 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 only parameter (nested query.scheduleDays, defaulting to the preferred scheduleRange with a max of 30) is never mentioned in the description, and the reported schema description coverage is 0%. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('获取工作台聚合数据') plus the scope of the payload ('聚合首屏数据'), so an agent knows this returns a composed first-screen view. However it never distinguishes itself from the very close sibling anon_get_dashboard_summary, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

Gives two useful conditions: project membership is required, and projectId must NOT be passed because the project is derived from the API key. But it offers no when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as get_dashboard_summary, get_dashboard_my_actions, get_dashboard_schedule or get_dashboard_preferences.

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