Get Dashboard

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

The description labels the operation as 'Read', implying non-destructive behavior. However, with no annotations, it misses the chance to disclose traits like authentication requirements, what happens on empty data, or whether it combines multiple sources. It is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral details beyond the verb.

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 a single concise sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be structured to include parameter details. It achieves brevity without waste, but misses the opportunity to be more informative due to length.

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 the low complexity (one optional param, output schema exists), the description should cover output nature and how 'compact' affects it. It does not mention output at all and omits parameter semantics, leaving a significant gap in context completeness.

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 single parameter 'compact' is described only in the schema (boolean, default false). The description provides no explanation of its purpose or effect, leaving the agent to guess. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely.

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 Ninova dashboard and summarizes courses, announcements, assignments, and messages. The verb 'Read' indicates read-only access, and the resource is the dashboard. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_dashboard_announcements or get_dashboard_assignments by offering a combined summary, though 'summarize' could be more precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_dashboard_announcements or get_dashboard_assignments exist for specific data, but the description doesn't advise using this tool for an overview or when to drill down. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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