get_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. 'Get' implies a read operation and the default date behavior is disclosed, but the description does not mention authentication, error behavior, caching, or explicitly state non-mutation. It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose, then two argument lines with no filler. The most useful information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 low parameter count and existing output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It lacks explicit sibling routing and a stated read-only guarantee, but the output schema supplies return-structure information and the parameters are fully documented.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: both parameters are explained with format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), an example project name, optionality, and the default-to-today behavior. This adds real semantic value beyond the raw 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'), names the resource ('CDash dashboard'), scopes it to 'for a project', and specifies the content ('showing build groups and status'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_build_details or get_project_overview, which target different artifacts.

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 the tool is for retrieving a project dashboard, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There are ten sibling tools, and the description does not explain when get_dashboard should be preferred over get_project_overview or get_build_details.

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