wetrack_get_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately signals a read operation via 'Get' and lists what data will be returned, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, mention auth requirements, or note any data freshness/aggregation caveats.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose and dashboard components appear first, followed by a clean two-line Args section. No redundant or filler phrasing exists.

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?

The tool is a read-only dashboard retrieval with a provided output schema, so return-value documentation is already handled. The description covers the dashboard components and both optional scoping parameters. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit alternative routing and absence of a read-only safety statement, which matter more because annotations are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare property definitions. It does, by explaining that project_id scopes the dashboard to a specific project UUID and sprint_id targets the burndown chart. This gives the agent meaning beyond the raw type/nullable details in the schema.

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?

Begins with a specific verb and resource, 'Get the aggregated dashboard', and enumerates the exact dashboard sections (KPIs, Team Workload, Status Donut, Project Health, Pending Tickets, Sprint Burndown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_stats or get_project_overview by framing it as the umbrella dashboard view.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need an aggregated, multi-section dashboard overview. It also explains how to scope the dashboard with project_id and sprint_id, which is actionable usage guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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