get_dashboard_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether it requires authentication, what happens with invalid IDs (e.g., errors vs. null returns), rate limits, or pagination. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by well-formatted Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose makes it immediately scannable.

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 low complexity (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks context about authentication requirements and error handling, which would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'dashboard_id' with its type (int) and meaning ('ID of the dashboard'), adding semantic value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema gap. However, it doesn't provide examples or constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges).

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a dashboard by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_metabase_dashboards' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single dashboard via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools like 'get_dashboard_cards' or 'get_dashboard_items'.

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 doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_metabase_dashboards' for listing dashboards, or how it relates to 'get_dashboard_cards'/'get_dashboard_items'. There's also no information about prerequisites like authentication or permissions needed to access dashboards.

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