Kasra Get Dashboard Summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It lists what data is included, but it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, any required prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or behavior limits. It's clear it's a lookup, but details like data freshness or error conditions are absent.

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 structured as a bulleted list followed by a concise English summary. It is informative without excessive length, though the dual-language repetition adds slight redundancy.

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's complexity (multiple data points), the description covers the main outputs. With no output schema details (though indicated as present), the description compensates by listing the included items. It's complete enough for a dashboard summary, but doesn't specify exact return format or data types.

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 sole parameter 'reason' is not documented in the description (schema coverage 0%), but since it's optional with a default of null, the agent likely doesn't need to set it. The description covers what the tool returns, so the parameter's purpose, likely a justification or audit trail, is not explained, but this is a minor gap.

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 that the tool retrieves a dashboard summary with a detailed list of included items (punch, cardex, hours, permissions, requests). This differentiates it from siblings that focus on specific aspects like daily report or punch gaps.

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 use when a broad overview of attendance and status is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or direct to alternatives for more detailed data. The sibling context suggests alternatives, but the description itself lacks comparative guidance.

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