training_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the metrics covered but does not state that the tool is read-only, indicate data sources, or describe any side effects. For a dashboard tool, the lack of explicit behavioral context is a notable gap.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the key concept and metrics. No wasted words or redundant details.

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?

The description lists the metrics summarized but does not explain what the output or summary looks like, especially given the absence of an output schema. For a simple tool with no parameters, this is adequate but could be more explicit about the return format or scope.

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, which gives a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and fully covered.

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 it is a 'Unified Status Dashboard' that summarizes specific metrics (PMC, TID, ACWR, Readiness, Provider Status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that calculate individual metrics, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 when an aggregated overview of multiple training metrics is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over individual metric tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the unified nature provides some contextual guidance.

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