dashboards_get_dashboard_config

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

The description transparently indicates a read-only 'get' operation with no side effects. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and clearly expresses that the tool retrieves config without mutation.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes relevant examples. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's functionality and parameter usage, making it complete for the agent to use correctly among many sibling tools.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that url_path can be a dashboard name or a view path inside the default dashboard, provides concrete examples, and clarifies that omission returns the full default dashboard. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 retrieves a Lovelace dashboard config, specifies the parameter can be a dashboard name or view path, and distinguishes between omitting or providing the parameter. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like dashboards_list_dashboards and dashboards_get_dashboard_resources.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (to get a dashboard config) and how to specify the url_path parameter with examples. It lacks explicit contrast with alternative tools, but the context and examples are sufficient for appropriate use.

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