Estatísticas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the call returns (the metric set), which is the main behavioral question for a zero-argument aggregate tool. It says nothing about data freshness, tenant scoping, authentication state, or whether counts are cached, so it remains at a solid midpoint rather than above it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the metric list is the payload and each item earns its place. The colon-fragment phrasing ('Aspa dashboard:') is slightly clipped but sacrifices no clarity.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does list the returned metrics, which is the right instinct. However, it does not indicate the shape of the response (single flat object vs. nested per-agent breakdown) or the timezone/definition of 'today', leaving structural ambiguity for an agent that must consume the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts or confuses that.

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 (Aspa dashboard) and enumerates the specific metrics returned: today's conversations, active, concluded, without reply, snoozed, and per-agent counts. That enumeration distinguishes it clearly from siblings like aspa_list_conversations or aspa_list_concluded, which return records rather than aggregate counts. It stops short of a 5 only because the verb is implicit ('dashboard:' rather than 'Retrieve aggregate counts').

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the record-listing siblings (aspa_list_conversations, aspa_list_concluded) or aspa_audit_log, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'dashboard' faintly implies an overview/summary use case, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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