paperclip_get_dashboard

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read operation ('return'). The description adds beyond annotations by detailing error scenarios (401, 403) and describing the return structure, which informs the agent of the tool's behavior without contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, args, returns, examples, error handling. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value without redundancy. At multiple paragraphs, it remains efficient and scannable.

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 simple input schema (1 optional param with enum) and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return object's structure (goals array, projects array, etc.) and covers error cases, leaving no gaps for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description and enum for the single parameter. The description repeats the parameter enum and default but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 returns a 'company-level health summary' including specific components (goals, projects, issues, agent workload), using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('dashboard'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_list_issues and paperclip_get_issue by specifying it's a board-level overview.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' guidance, naming alternative sibling tools (paperclip_list_issues, paperclip_get_issue). It also includes error handling instructions for authentication and permission failures, helping the agent decide when to use this tool.

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