Dashboard State

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description aligns by calling it a snapshot and stating it avoids direct file reads. No side effects are mentioned or implied, so the description is consistent with the annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loads the returned content, then adds usage context. It is reasonably concise, though the term 'dashboard blob' is slightly informal and the list of contained data could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 description enumerates the key fields in the snapshot, explains the use case, and notes the output is a JSON blob. Since no parameters exist and the output schema is referenced but not shown, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to decide whether to call 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is needed. The baseline score of 4 applies; there is no additional semantic detail to provide.

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 states the tool returns a live engagement dashboard snapshot including phase, outcomes, findings ledger, assets, and brain activity. It names the CLI mirror and specifies the intended use for answering scan status questions, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like cordon_status.

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 explicit guidance to use this tool for answering 'where is the scan, what has it found' and notes it avoids reading workspace files directly. It does not enumerate alternatives or state when not to use it, but the primary use case is clear.

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