SuperColony

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, latency expectations, or data freshness. For a dashboard tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 packs substantial information about what data is returned. It's appropriately sized for a parameterless tool and front-loads the main purpose ('Get the full convergence dashboard'). While concise, it could potentially be more structured by separating the different data components more clearly.

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 has zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate information about what data is returned (dashboard with specific components). However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects (no annotations) and doesn't help differentiate from sibling tools. For a dashboard tool with no structured output definition, the description should ideally provide more detail about the return format and structure.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what data is returned, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 the full convergence dashboard' with specific components listed (pulse stats, enriched signal details, mindshare time-series). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('convergence dashboard'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like supercolony_stats or supercolony_signals that might provide overlapping functionality.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, timing considerations, or differentiate it from sibling tools like supercolony_stats or supercolony_signals that might provide similar data. The agent receives no usage context beyond what the tool name implies.

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