amulen_project_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the payload contains (aggregates rather than raw records), which is not derivable from annotations. It says nothing about cost, scope restrictions, or what happens with an invalid/missing slug.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed item is a distinct metric. The telegraphic noun-phrase style leaves the sentence without a verb, which is a mild structure weakness rather than verbosity.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully stands in for the return shape by enumerating the metric families. However, for a reporting tool with zero annotation coverage of returns, it omits granularity, time-range behavior, and the meaning of the required slug, so an agent still cannot predict the response precisely.

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 0%, so the single required parameter project_slug is documented nowhere. The description's mention of 'project metrics' only implicitly hints at project scoping and gives no format, slug vs. ID, or behavior for unknown projects. With one undocumented parameter the description should have compensated and does not.

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 names the resource (project metrics) and enumerates its contents specifically: tasks by state, overdue tasks, projected/real hours, tasks per user, and per-board hour budgets. That enumerable content distinguishes it from CRUD siblings like amulen_get_project or amulen_list_tasks. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'computes'), but the intent is recoverable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over amulen_get_project, amulen_my_tasks, or amulen_list_tasks, nor any condition such as 'use when the user asks for aggregate status reporting'. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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