get_project_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the main content of the dashboard (health score, tasks, agent activity, locks, recommendations), which helps the agent expect the response shape. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it aggregates data from other tools, or any potential side effects or limitations. The listed contents add some transparency, but the absence of a 'does not modify data' statement leaves a gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded: a clear title, a brief summary paragraph, and a bulleted WHEN TO USE list. There is minor redundancy between 'Get comprehensive project health dashboard' and 'Provides a complete overview of project status', but overall the content is efficient and scannable, earning a high score.

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 aggregates multiple data types and lacks an output schema, the description does a good job of listing the key return categories: health score, task statistics, agent activity, file locks, and recommendations. It does not cover edge cases like parameter precedence or error scenarios, but for a dashboard overview tool, the content is sufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's value and select it appropriately.

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% (project_id, project_name, workspace_path), each with simple descriptions like 'Project ID' and 'Project name to look up'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as whether the parameters are alternatives or how conflicts are resolved. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already defines the parameters adequately.

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 gets a 'comprehensive project health dashboard' and enumerates specific content: health score, task statistics, agent activity, file locks, and recommendations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_info or get_project_tasks by being a composite dashboard of multiple aspects, rather than a single-purpose lookup.

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?

Provides an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' list covering four common scenarios: checking project health, seeing what needs attention, monitoring team progress, and identifying bottlenecks. It does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions, so it stops short of a perfect score, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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