conduyt_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' and the enumerated content imply a read-only aggregate, and it does disclose what fields will be returned (including admin metrics and billing), which is useful. It says nothing about data freshness/caching, permission requirements (there is a conduyt_check_permissions sibling), or response size, which matters for a broad rollup with no output schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of the dashboard's contents. Dense but every clause names a concrete section; no filler.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does enumerate the major sections (pipeline, counts, admin metrics, billing, follow-ups, overdue tasks). For a zero-parameter read tool this is broadly sufficient, with the remaining gaps being freshness and sibling differentiation.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumeration of sections is not parameter-related but helps the agent understand what the argument-free call produces.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get a full CRM dashboard summary') and enumerates the exact payload: pipeline stages with deal values, activity/count metrics, admin metrics, billing, follow-up contacts, overdue tasks. It reads as an aggregate/overview tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling conduyt_get_dashboard or conduyt_run_dashboard, leaving an agent unable to tell why one over another exists.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the obvious siblings conduyt_get_dashboard, conduyt_list_dashboards, conduyt_run_dashboard, or conduyt_ai_daily_brief. Usage is only implied by the word 'summary'.

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