get_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully warns that order mirrors the discovery feed and that agent metadata is user-generated, implying potential unreliability. However, it does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only, describe response shape, or mention any rate limits or auth expectations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each carrying distinct value: core function, ordering caveat, and metadata trust caveat. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more heavy lifting. It communicates the core return concept (agent snapshot with pricing), the ordering behavior, and the user-generated nature of metadata. However, it leaves the exact output structure and some parameter semantics (network, timeout_secs) to the schema, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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, but it only mentions top_n and chain. It does not explain network or timeout_secs, even though those are meaningful parameters. The schema's enums and defaults provide some structure, but the description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond what the names already imply.

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 states a specific resource (dashboard snapshot of agents on a chain), a scope (first top_n agents), and includes pricing info. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly clarifying that the order is the discovery feed, not a quality ranking, which separates it from list_agents/search_agents.

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 clear context: this is a snapshot of the discovery feed for a given chain, with top_n and pricing info. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'NOT a ranking' clarification helps an agent avoid misusing it as a quality-based search tool.

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