Nudge Kanban dispatcher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it 'nudges' the dispatcher to skip the wait and writes 'redacted receipts', which provides some operational context. However, with no annotations covering write behavior (no auth requirements, no rate limits, no side-effect details beyond skipping the wait), the description carries a moderate burden but doesn't fully disclose what 'nudge' implies operationally.

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?

Single dense sentence that packs the endpoint, verb, purpose, params, and behavior efficiently. It's front-loaded with the core action. Slightly overloaded but still readable; no wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema, all 4 params documented at 100% coverage, and the description covers the main action (skip 60s wait). For a dispatch-triggering tool, the description is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't clarify side effects of nudging beyond skipping the wait, what 'redacted receipts' means for the caller, or whether repeated nudges are safe (idempotentHint=false hints otherwise but the description doesn't elaborate). Given the operation involves triggering work, slightly richer context would help.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists max, dry_run, board, and tenant query params, which mirrors the schema. It doesn't add any semantic meaning beyond the schema—e.g., what 'max' bounds in relation to the endpoint's behavior, or how dry_run relates to 'redacted receipts'. The description adds no value over the well-documented 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 identifies a typed POST /api/plugins/kanban/dispatch wrapper that nudges the kanban dispatcher to skip the 60s wait, with optional query params and redacted receipts. It names the verb (nudge), resource (kanban dispatcher via POST dispatch endpoint), and key behavioral effect (skip wait). It differentiates from siblings by virtue of the POST dispatch action, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for exclusion.

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 as a nudge to trigger immediate dispatch rather than waiting 60s, and mentions dry_run for testing. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., when to use hermes_kanban_task_update or hermes_kanban_tasks_bulk_update instead), nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions that make nudging appropriate or inappropriate.

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