get_dashboard_charts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that the tool gets chart definitions and form data, implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is safe, requires permissions, or has any side effects. It also does not explain what 'form data' means or the structure of the response. This lack of detail is insufficient given the absence of 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get'). It contains no unnecessary words or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the required 'id_or_slug' parameter, the nature of the returned data, or the difference from sibling tools. An agent would have limited context to invoke this tool correctly. The description is a minimal statement of functionality but lacks the necessary guidance and expected behavior context.

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 schema has one parameter, 'id_or_slug', with no description, resulting in 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning, format, or usage. Although the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description should add context, but it does not mention the parameter at all.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving chart definitions and form data for a dashboard. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('chart definitions and form data for a dashboard'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard' or 'get_chart'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools such as 'get_dashboard_datasets' or 'get_chart_data', so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like 'get_chart_data' or 'get_dashboard_datasets'. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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