get_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'get metadata,' which implies a non-destructive read, but it does not explain return format, error behavior (e.g., not-found), authentication requirements, or what 'metadata' specifically includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no auxiliary structured annotations.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It delivers the necessary information about resource, action, and identifier type in a compact format. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally viable. It states the action and how to specify the target, but because there is no output schema, it does not describe the returned metadata structure. It also does not mention any edge cases or related tools. This is a common level of completeness for a basic getter, but it leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema provides only a required string parameter 'id_or_slug' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the parameter accepts a numeric ID or a slug, giving essential semantic meaning. It does not detail slug format, but it adds enough for an agent to understand the parameter's purpose.

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 action (get) and the resource (dashboard metadata), and specifies the identifier form (numeric ID or slug). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_dashboards (which lists) and get_dashboard_charts/datasets (which retrieve specific subresources).

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 phrase 'by numeric ID or slug' provides clear usage context: call this when you already have a dashboard identifier. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the identifier requirement implies when to use it. Sibling tools like list_dashboards are not referenced, but the guidance is sufficient for a get-by-ID tool.

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