tracker_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main behavioral disclosure adds value by detailing the returned content and the branch scoping behavior (auto-detect with 'current'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences: purpose, return list, and usage tip. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description lists all return components (project info, epics, stats, activity, notes) which is sufficient for an overview tool. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description covers usage and return value. No gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes parameters. The description adds extra meaning by specifying branch='current' for auto-detection and explaining the empty string case. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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: 'Get a comprehensive project overview in a single call' and lists exactly what it returns (project info, epics, stats, activity, notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_list or epic_list, and the phrase 'best first tool to call' further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly recommends this as the first tool when starting a project and provides branch scoping instructions. However, it does not state when to use alternatives like task_list or epic_list, nor does it give 'when not to use' guidance, which would strengthen the score.

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