get_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content of the dashboard but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, data freshness, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists key dashboard components without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Get analytics dashboard') and follows with specifics. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping related metrics or indicating priority, but it remains highly concise.

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 complexity of an analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It details what the dashboard includes but omits behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only status, permissions), output format, and usage context. For a tool that likely returns rich data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer 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 description mentions no parameters, while the input schema has one parameter ('period') with 100% schema description coverage. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description doesn't need to add param info, but it also doesn't compensate or provide additional context. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get analytics dashboard' with specific content details like 'conversation stats, response times, breakdowns by category/status/priority/app, daily trends, and team activity.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('analytics dashboard'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sentiment_insights' or 'get_active_users' which might also provide analytics-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists what the dashboard includes but doesn't mention when to choose it over other analytics tools like 'get_sentiment_insights' or 'get_active_users', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal use cases. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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