get_multi_team_dashboard

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as response format, pagination, rate limits, or potential performance considerations. It only restates that it is a combined dashboard, which is already evident from the name.

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 concise, opening with a direct purpose statement and followed by a structured parameter list. It avoids unnecessary prose. The parameter list is functional but could be integrated into the schema descriptions to reduce redundancy; nevertheless, it is well organized and front-loaded.

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 that the tool has annotations, an output schema, and parameter descriptions, the basic callable information is present. However, it lacks any usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over get_team_dashboard or get_multi_team_pulse) and does not mention potential limits or edge cases. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding among similar dashboard tools.

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 description's Args section provides significant semantic value beyond the bare schema, explaining that projects are comma-separated short names, active_limit and blocked_limit specify top N counts, and group_by_product controls grouping. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, not all parameters receive equally detailed explanations (e.g., instance is only 'optional').

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('multi-team dashboard'), specifying it provides a 'combined dashboard for multiple projects in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-team dashboard tools like get_team_dashboard. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other multi-team tools such as get_multi_team_pulse, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or contextual triggers. The phrase 'in one call' hints at efficient batch retrieval, but there is no explicit instruction or comparison with sibling tools.

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