blackboard_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context with 'bounded output', indicating the result is intentionally limited rather than exhaustive—useful behavioral information beyond the annotation set.

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?

A single, tightly-worded sentence covers the tool's scope and a key output constraint. Every phrase earns its place, and the main subject ('Blackboard ... summary') is 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 zero parameters, rich annotations covering safety, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient. It names the data domains included and signals the bounded nature of the output, so an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is effectively complete and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Baseline for zero-parameter tools applies and the description's category list gives the agent enough context about what the output will cover.

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 identifies the tool as a summary aggregation of Blackboard identity, courses, to-do, activity, and messages, which distinguishes it from granular siblings like blackboard_courses or blackboard_messages. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but 'summary' implies a read operation.

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 implies usage: when a bounded cross-domain snapshot of Blackboard is needed, this tool fits. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over connects_dashboard or the granular blackboard_* tools, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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