Delimit Agent Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Side effects: read-only', naming the underlying call (ai.agent_dispatch.get_agent_dashboard), and clarifying the aggregated nature of the view. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections: when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, side effects, args, and returns. It is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only dashboard tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, usage boundaries, sibling differences, side effects, underlying function, and a summary of the return value. Nothing needed to correctly select and invoke this tool is missing.

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 baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'Args: None', which removes any ambiguity for the agent even though the schema already shows an empty object. There is no parameter semantics to add beyond this.

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 and resource ('View the multi-agent orchestration dashboard') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings: it returns an aggregated dashboard view while delimit_agent_status returns raw records. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even among a large sibling list.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('one-shot read of all agent activity grouped by assignee/status') and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives (delimit_agent_status for single task status, delimit_agent_dispatch for dispatching work). This fully routes an agent to the correct tool.

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