rti_dashboard

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the output (totals) but does not mention whether the tool triggers network requests, whether the 'refresh' parameter causes side effects, or any authentication/staleness considerations. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and context. No word is superfluous, and the em dash effectively separates the output from its domain.

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?

The output schema exists and likely documents return values, but the description omits essential context about the refresh parameter and any behavioral side effects. Given there are no annotations, the tool's complete behavior is not adequately specified for an agent to safely and correctly invoke it.

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 only parameter, 'refresh', is a boolean with a default of false, but the schema provides no description and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent receives no guidance on when setting refresh to true is appropriate or what it does. Since schema coverage is 0% and the description fails to compensate, parameter semantics are completely unaddressed.

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 specifies the tool's output as aggregate totals (registered/disposed/pending) for RTI requests and first appeals, and identifies it as the View History dashboard summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rti_list or rti_search by focusing on dashboard totals rather than itemized lists. The absence of an explicit action verb (e.g., 'get') slightly reduces clarity but the intent remains unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies a dashboard context but does not contrast with sibling tools (e.g., rti_list, rti_status) or state when not to use it. This leaves the agent to infer the tool's role relative to others.

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