delimit_agent_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('View') and mentions 'Pro' (suggesting license requirement), but lacks details on side effects, permissions, data freshness, or output scope. The addition of '(Pro)' provides some context, but the description is minimal.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has no parameters and an output schema (context signal), the description provides a good overview of the dashboard's content. However, it lacks explanation of the output format (e.g., structured data vs. UI) and does not clarify the 'Pro' requirement fully. Overall, it is largely complete for a dashboard view.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it adds no extra semantic value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('View') and resource ('multi-agent orchestration dashboard'). It lists the types of information shown (agent tasks grouped by assignee and status, handoff history, linked ledger items, recent audit trail), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delimit_agent_status or delimit_handoff_list.

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 usage for viewing a consolidated dashboard, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., individual tools for specific pieces like handoff history or ledger items). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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