trust_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it shows preserved data but does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or response size. It is minimal.

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 short (3 sentences) but includes figurative language ('proving the prosthetic works') that may be unclear. The list in the second sentence is helpful, but overall could be more direct and less metaphorical.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description gives a high-level view of what information is shown (conversations, domains, questions, decisions). However, it does not detail the output structure or any return value format, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for trivial parameter count.

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 it provides system-wide stats about preserved items (conversations, domains, questions, decisions). It uses a metaphorical 'proving the prosthetic works' but then specifies concrete categories. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'brain_stats' which could be similar.

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 implies a 'everything is okay' view for health checking, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, no exclusions or context triggers.

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