enoch_overview

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

Annotations already clearly mark it as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the concept of 'bounded' and lists included components, but does not explain behavioral traits like pagination, limits, or response structure beyond what annotations provide. It adds some context but does not significantly enhance 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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's identity ('Bounded Dashboard V1 overview') and lists key content categories. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 strong annotations and optional parameters, the description provides the core purpose and content categories. However, it lacks details on return format, how parameters affect the output, and explicit differentiation from siblings. For a dashboard overview with many sibling tools, more contextual completeness would help the agent decide when to use this tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (active_limit, event_limit). While the word 'bounded' hints at limiting results, the agent receives no explicit guidance on how these parameters affect the response. The description should clarify that these control the number of items returned for categories like events or lanes.

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 'Bounded Dashboard V1 overview: operator counts, lanes, papers, top actions, events' clearly indicates the tool provides an aggregated overview of specific dashboard metrics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enoch_events or enoch_lanes by covering multiple aspects in one call. However, it does not explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve'), slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focusing on individual components, the description should indicate that this is a high-level overview suitable for initial status checks, and when to drill down into specific tools. The omission leaves the agent without contextual decision support.

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