brief

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

The description claims '[read-only]' but also mentions options 'dismiss' and 'undismiss' which imply state changes, creating ambiguity. No behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or limits are disclosed, and annotations are absent.

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 concise at two lines plus a third for options, with the main purpose front-loaded. Some phrasing is cryptic (e.g., 'import(openbox=)'), but overall it is efficient.

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 dashboard tool with three parameters and no annotations or output schema details, the description leaves many questions unanswered: what the dashboard displays, the nature of nudges, and how to handle the external source. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description adds meaning to 'dismiss' ('turn off a nudge') and 'undismiss' ('restore it'), but does not explain 'help' or the 'external source' reference. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides only partial parameter clarity.

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 states it is a 'project dashboard' meant to be called at the start of every session, clearly indicating a read-only overview. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'status' or 'show', lacking specificity on what the dashboard contains.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'call at the start of every session', providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools.

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