dashclaw_posture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, never activates enforcement, and describes the gaming-resistant nature of the score. It also clearly details the return data structure.

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 fairly long but well-organized with clear separation of purpose, return data, and behavioral constraints. It front-loads the main action and uses quotes to highlight key concepts, though some sentences could be tightened.

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 provides a thorough explanation of the return data (score, dimensions, findings with fields). The single optional parameter is clearly explained, and the tool's role as a read-only observability tool is fully covered.

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 schema covers the single parameter with a description, and the tool description adds context by listing the six available dimensions in the return data. This helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose beyond the schema alone.

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 reads the org-wide governance posture score and remediation queue, listing specific return fields (score, six dimensions, open findings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dashclaw_posture_next by focusing on the current posture rather than next steps.

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 indicates this is a read-only introspection tool and clarifies that resolving findings is operator-driven, not agent-driven. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, but the context of 'read-only governance retrospection' provides adequate guidance.

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