list_dashboards

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

The '[READ]' prefix merely restates the readOnlyHint=true annotation, adding no information beyond structured data. No behavioral context is disclosed about result size, pagination, ordering, or what happens when the target is unreachable.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no filler. It is slightly verbose for a two-parameter list tool but every line is useful.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers both inputs and the default-target behavior. Return-value shape is not described, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does reasonably well: it defines 'query' as an optional title substring and 'target' as a Grafana target name from config, with the extra guidance to omit it for the default. This meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 specific verb ('list') and resource ('Grafana dashboards') with a scope qualifier (optional title filtering), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_dashboard, update_dashboard, and delete_dashboard. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_dashboard or list_folders, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only routing information is implicit in the parenthetical filter note.

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