Dream View

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — owner-identity/scope isolation, fail-closed hiding, egress fence, call-time gates — but the terms "R1" and "egress fence" are unexplained jargon an agent cannot act on.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the parenthetical section list is misleading relative to the schema and the trailing policy-acronym sentence spends space on terms that are never defined, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, fully described parameters, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only to frame scope and access semantics — which it does. The remaining gap is routing versus siblings and the tab-list inconsistency.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the tab enum is documented in structured fields; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior and does not resolve the mismatch between its own section list and the schema's tab values.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Inspect") and resource ("Dream Workspace") and labels it a read-only projection, which an agent can understand. However, the enumerated contents ("Ideas, Goals, Principles, Feed") conflict with the schema's `tab` values (overview, memory, todo, decisions, documents, conversations, timeline, settings, home), so the agent cannot confidently reconcile what this tool actually reads.

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 on when to call this versus siblings such as get_project_context, recall_context, get_timeline, or memory_stats, which all read related state. The description never states the trigger condition or any exclusion.

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