dosare_actions

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the content of each category, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. It also doesn't mention pagination or response size, which could matter for an aggregation tool.

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 with clear category labels and bullet-like examples. It is slightly long but each segment adds value, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. No fluff or 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 complexity of three distinct categories, the description covers each adequately. No output schema exists, but the description implies the return will contain these categories with relevant items. It doesn't detail the exact response format, but for an agent needing to surface user attention items, this is sufficient.

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 only parameter (companyId) is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 aggregates attention items across all dosare, breaking it into three specific categories (todo, inProgress, answers) with concrete examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dosare_list and dosare_stats by focusing on user action items rather than raw listing.

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 trigger: 'Start here when the user asks what do I have to do?' This gives clear guidance on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the trigger is strong enough for an agent to select it.

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