aureon_get_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only aggregate but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether values are live or cached, or what scope (user/workspace) the aggregates cover. For a dashboard endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single short clause with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about what the tool returns, and it does list the three aggregate values. However, it omits auth expectations and does not clarify how the aggregates relate to the more granular siblings, leaving real gaps for a zero-parameter dashboard 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema already shows; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description adds the semantic meaning of the returned fields, which is a small bonus.

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 names a specific resource (dashboard overview) and enumerates the three aggregates returned — total AUM, objective count, aggregate health. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like aureon_get_health or aureon_list_objectives, though it does not use a clear verb (e.g. 'get') or explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as aureon_get_health, aureon_get_portfolio, or aureon_list_objectives, and no mention of prerequisites or auth state. Usage must be inferred from the name and the aggregate nature of the return fields.

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