anon_get_dashboard_preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structural context: the project-member authorization requirement and the fallback semantics when no record exists (defaultView resolving to project/personal by permission), which an agent could not infer from the empty schema.

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?

Three short lines: purpose first, then precondition/behavior, then the endpoint and the projectId note. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema GET, the description covers the operation, the auth requirement, the default-value behavior, and the implicit project scoping. The only gap is that the shape of the returned preferences object is never hinted at, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly further by explaining that no projectId is needed because the project is inferred from the API key, preempting a likely agent mistake, but there are no other parameters to document.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("获取工作台偏好") and pairs it with the concrete endpoint GET /api/projects/{id}/dashboard/preferences, so the operation is unambiguous. It is not confused with siblings like anon_get_dashboard_summary or anon_get_dashboard_my_actions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the PATCH counterpart or those dashboard reads.

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 gives a prerequisite ("需项目成员身份") and the context that the project is derived from the API key, which is useful for calling it correctly. However it never says when an agent should read these preferences rather than call anon_patch_dashboard_preferences to modify them, or when this is preferable to anon_get_dashboard_summary.

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