anon_get_dashboard_summary

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds two behavioral facts not in the annotations: a member-identity authorization requirement and that the project scope is auto-resolved from the API key rather than passed in.

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 compact lines: purpose first, then the access precondition, then the endpoint and the no-projectId clarification. Nothing is padded and every sentence carries information.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies the key operational facts (auth requirement, implicit project scope). The only gap is that with no output schema it doesn't hint at what the 'summary' contains, but that is a minor omission.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining why none are needed (the project is inferred from the API key), which preempts an agent from searching for a projectId argument.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('获取仪表盘汇总' / get dashboard summary) and pins the exact endpoint, so the agent knows what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very close sibling anon_get_dashboard (or anon_get_dashboard_my_actions / anon_get_dashboard_schedule), leaving the agent to guess which dashboard endpoint to pick.

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 states a real usage precondition ('需项目成员身份' – requires project membership) and clarifies the project is derived from the API key, which is useful context. But it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the other dashboard-family tools, so selection remains implied.

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