dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is read-only. The description adds value by explaining the return format (JSON with data and _meta), truncation behavior, and pagination/filtering suggestions. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but overall provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 well-structured with sections for main purpose, distinguishing guidance, and sub-action lists. However, it is verbose; some information (e.g., repeating parameters in sub-action descriptions) could be more concise. The front-loading of purpose and usage guidelines is effective.

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 has 17 parameters, no output schema, and many sub-actions, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all sub-actions, their required parameters, pagination, return format, and truncation handling. The description compensates for the lack of output schema by detailing the response structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter. The description adds semantic grouping by listing which parameters are used with which sub-actions (e.g., 'Used with list_users'), providing context beyond the schema. This helps the agent understand parameter applicability without relying solely on the schema's descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Training analytics and progress reporting.' It enumerates specific sub-actions and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by directing metadata queries to entity-specific tools (users, courses, etc.). The verb 'Get' and resource 'analytics' are specific and distinct from siblings.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool ('for training progress, completions, and analytics') and when to use alternatives ('For entity metadata and catalogs, use the entity-specific tool instead'). It lists sub-actions with prerequisites, but could be more explicit about when to use specific sub-actions over others.

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