get_dashboard_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return value (a dict with a top-level 'views' list) and the edge case of no stored config (returns an empty scaffold with a note). This is adequate for a read-only getter, though it doesn't discuss error states or permissions.

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 (three sentences) and well-structured with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and then provides necessary details.

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 (single optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It describes the return structure, the default behavior, and the fallback for missing config. No critical information is missing for a getter tool.

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 compensate. It explains the url_path parameter with an example ('my-dash') and its purpose (dashboard's URL path). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, which only specifies type and default.

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: 'Get a dashboard's full configuration'. This is a specific verb + resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_dashboard_config (set vs get) and other dashboard manipulation tools (add_card, update_card).

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 the url_path parameter, including the convention for the default dashboard ('Omit or pass None for the default Overview dashboard'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous given the tool's getter nature.

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