get_dashboard_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts data but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how it handles missing files, or any rate limits. For a tool that likely reads files, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Extract aggregated data') and specifies sources and content. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the output type or usage context.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what data is extracted and from where, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with low complexity, this is acceptable but leaves gaps that could hinder effective agent use.

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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'config' documented as 'Path to config.toml file to determine output directory'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as default behavior if no config is provided or details on file formats. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'aggregated data from summary.json or the HTML dashboard', specifying it includes 'overall run statistics and metrics'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_last_run' or 'view_run_logs' by focusing on aggregated dashboard data rather than individual runs or logs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'parse_metrics', which might overlap in analyzing metrics.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a prior run to have generated the dashboard files, or compare it to siblings like 'parse_etrics' or 'get_last_run'. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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