marrow_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and lists the data categories included, providing a solid understanding of the tool's behavior. It doesn't discuss side effects or potential failures, but for a read-only dashboard, the behavior is well disclosed.

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: two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and contents, while the second adds the value proposition. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

For a no-parameter dashboard tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It fully covers what the tool returns and why it's useful. The sibling context is not needed since this is a unique aggregator. The content list is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description's mention of 'one call' reinforces that no input is needed, making the parameter semantics fully clear. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds positive value by implying the zero-input nature.

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') and resource ('operator dashboard'), and enumerates the exact contents: account health, top failures, workflow status, recent activity, and Marrow's saves metric. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like marrow_status or marrow_agent_status, which likely focus on singular 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?

It states when to use: 'One call returns everything an operator needs to see.' This implies using it for a consolidated overview. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'everything' phrasing makes the scope clear, and sibling comparisons are not necessary for such a dashboard aggregator.

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