get_security_dashboard

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact metrics and attributes returned (severity, vulnerability counts, MTTR), which helps the agent understand the output without needing an output schema. It does not disclose potential pitfalls like filtering behavior, but for a simple read-only dashboard the provided context is sufficient.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the specific contents. It contains no redundant words and earns its place by efficiently conveying the tool's scope.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool returns and the dashboard nature. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that it provides an aggregated summary rather than detailed records, but the word 'dashboard' and the metric list largely convey this.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'days' parameter, which already includes a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'security posture dashboard', and enumerates the key metrics (open incidents by severity, vulnerability counts, mean time to resolve). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_security_incidents or list_vulnerabilities, which focus on lists rather than an aggregated dashboard view.

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 implies usage for obtaining a high-level security overview, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_security_incidents or list_vulnerabilities. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned, only an implied scope.

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