aiworkhub_dashboard_skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: it names the data sources (skill registry and receipt store), restates non-mutation, and discloses the degraded-state contract of returning measured=False with an explicit reason when the store is absent or unreadable. That failure-mode disclosure is the valuable part, though it says nothing about result freshness or size.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the read-only guarantee and the core purpose, then routing guidance, then the degraded-state caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and with zero parameters there is no schema gap to fill. The description covers purpose, routing, data sources, mutation safety, and the failure contract, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the schema imposes nothing an agent must interpret and there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline of 4 applies for a well-formed no-argument view.

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 ('return') plus the exact resources reported (skill lifecycle counts, selection/injection coverage) and scopes it to the active repository. The READ-ONLY prefix and the explicit contrast with dashboard_settings (feature switches) and dashboard_snapshot (task queue state) let an agent distinguish it from siblings without opening the 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?

Gives a concrete use case ('audit active skill reachability, selection receipts, and consecutive empty-injection streaks') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them. No inference is required to route between this and the sibling dashboard views.

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