Get Dashboard Cards

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description's read-only wording aligns with them. It adds the current-user scope and the returned fields, but does not disclose potential pagination, authentication requirements, or whether cards may be limited or empty, which keeps it at a moderate level.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every word contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 (no parameters, read-only annotations, no nested objects), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand invocation and expected output. It specifies the key fields returned and the user scope, so no critical information appears to be missing.

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, so there is no parameter ambiguity and the schema already covers everything. The description adds value by naming the returned card attributes, making the output easy to infer despite no output schema.

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 precise resource ('current user's dashboard course cards') and adds output details ('position, color, and image'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_my_courses by focusing on dashboard cards rather than general course lists.

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 phrase 'current user's dashboard course cards' gives clear context that this is for the authenticated user's dashboard view, not other users or broader course listings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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