dl_dashboard_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-recursive scope ('only its direct dependencies') and that the style reference is kept separate, which is real behavioral context. However it says nothing about pagination behavior (max_pages/page_size/continuation exist) or how view/branch affect the result.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The clause 'keep an optional style reference separate' is slightly opaque but does convey a real distinction.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine how view/branch alter the read, how pagination works, or what the snapshot actually returns.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only gestures at reference_dashboard_id ('optional style reference separate') and dependency depth; view, branch, fields, revision_id, max_pages, page_size, and continuation are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Read one dashboard') plus a scoping constraint ('only its direct dependencies') and a distinction for the style reference. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings such as dl_object_get or dl_object_relations, which likely overlap with 'read an object and its relations'.

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?

There is no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. Given siblings like dl_object_get, dl_object_relations, and dl_object_diff, an agent cannot tell from the description when a dashboard snapshot is preferred over those.

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