get_puzzle_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more specificity without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'puzzle dashboard' entails, what data is returned, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns user-specific puzzle data, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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%, with the single parameter 'days' fully documented in the schema (type, description, constraints, default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does all the work.

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 'Get your puzzle dashboard' states the action (get) and resource (puzzle dashboard), but it's vague about what a 'puzzle dashboard' contains. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_puzzle_activity' or 'get_puzzle_storm_dashboard', leaving ambiguity about what specific puzzle-related data is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_puzzle_activity' and 'get_puzzle_storm_dashboard', the description offers no context about differences in scope, data returned, or appropriate use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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