get_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the tool's output contents and implies a read-only aggregation via the word 'Obtenir'. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as the default include_alerts=true behavior or whether any side effects occur. The name 'get' partially compensates, but a more explicit note about no modifications or the aggregation behavior would enhance transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately listing key content items. It then provides concrete use cases. No filler or redundant wording; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the summary contains and when to use it. It does not explicitly mention the include_alerts parameter, but the schema covers that, and the described contents align with the parameter's purpose. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (include_alerts), providing a clear explanation: 'Inclure les alertes stock et expiration (défaut: true)'. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Obtenir le résumé complet de la boutique' and lists the specific components (ventes du jour, stock critique, produits expirant bientôt, top produit du jour). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_low_stock_items or get_daily_sales, which cover individual aspects.

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 explicitly provides usage contexts: 'briefing matinal', 'questions générales sur l'état de la boutique', and example queries like 'comment ça se passe aujourd'hui ?'. This gives clear direction on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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