gnosys_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: returns JSON with specific sections and that omitting projectRoot uses the detected context. It doesn't mention performance, caching, or failure behavior, keeping it a step below the top.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the purpose and return contents before the alternative routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, which it handles by listing the JSON sections. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the lenient default for projectRoot, it is nearly complete, missing only output shape details like nesting or formatting.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents projectRoot as routing to a project's store. The description adds the meaningful default behavior that omission falls back to the detected context, which the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (local memory-system health), enumerates the returned content (memory counts, maintenance health, graph statistics, LLM provider status), and explicitly names the sibling gnosys_briefing as the alternative. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent to gnosys_briefing when a Markdown project summary and recent activity are wanted, and clarifies the projectRoot omission behavior. Clear usage context, though it doesn't state when-not to use this tool beyond that single alternative.

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