get_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile carries no burden here. The description adds that this is a single-call aggregate spanning four data domains, which is useful context, but says nothing about size, freshness, or truncation behavior of the aggregate.

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?

Two short sentences with the content summary front-loaded and the usage rule second. The 'Aggregate view:' fragment is slightly terse but every clause carries information; no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers what data domains are included and the intended call position, which is adequate for a 1-parameter read tool; only the entity filter's meaning is left unaddressed.

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 reported at 0%, so the description is expected to compensate and does not: the optional 'entity' filter is never mentioned. The only hint of filtering is absent entirely, leaving the agent to discover the scoping parameter from the schema alone.

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 the resource (dashboard) and enumerates its contents: active chains, open tickets, capacity summary, alerts. That aggregation scope is specific enough to distinguish it from the granular siblings (list_chains, list_tickets, read_capacity), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit call-ordering rule: 'First tool called every session.' That is real usage guidance an agent can act on. It lacks any when-not condition or named alternative for narrower queries, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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