project_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the dashboard's content but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what inputs it requires beyond the default path, or any potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 entire description is one sentence that directly conveys the tool's output and scope with no redundant words.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and output content, and an output schema is present, so return value details are unnecessary. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage context, making it slightly incomplete for a tool with zero annotations.

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 schema contains a single 'path' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to inference from its name and default value.

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 a specific action ('Generate a unified Project Manager Dashboard') and enumerates the exact content components (phase state, todo progress, git status, architecture violations, health score), making its purpose immediately clear and distinct from sibling reporting tools.

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 the tool is for generating a project overview but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like assess_project_readiness or project_readiness_report. An agent must infer its applicability from the dashboard's listed contents.

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