itsm_dashboard_summary

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 discloses the returned metric categories, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention data freshness, access requirements, aggregation caveats, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 with a colon-delimited list of specific fields. Every word is informative, with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully enumerates what the agent should expect: open count, resolved today, avg MTTR, top failing services, and ProofLink sealing rate. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead clarifies the output content, which is useful given the absence of an output 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('ITSM dashboard summary'), then enumerates the exact output fields (open count, resolved today, avg MTTR, top failing services, ProofLink sealing rate). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like itsm_get_mttr_stats or itsm_list_open_incidents.

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 this is the high-level dashboard overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the many more specific ITSM sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is only implicit.

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