shelf_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful but shallow context about what the dashboard surfaces (counts, overdue items). It does not say whether the data is scoped per user vs. whole org or how fresh it is.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no repetition. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly unhelpful but costs little; the definition is as tight as it can be while remaining this vague.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden for describing returns; it gestures at counts and overdue items but leaves the rest undefined. For a simple read-only aggregate with one optional param that is borderline acceptable, though the 'etc.' leaves a real gap.

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?

Single optional orgId parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already explains the SHELF_ORG_ID default. The description contributes nothing additional about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (a workspace dashboard) and enumerates some contents (asset/booking counts, overdue items), which no sibling tool provides. But there is no verb and the enumeration trails off with 'etc.', so the scope is only loosely delimited. An agent knows it's an aggregate summary view, but not exactly what it returns.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this dashboard rather than the many listing tools (shelf_list_assets, shelf_list_bookings, shelf_bookings_calendar). No prerequisites, no exclusions, not even an implied trigger beyond 'workspace dashboard'. The agent must infer purpose from the name.

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