superset_dashboard_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: drafts are included in results, pagination is handled internally ('across every page'), and the response shape (count/returned/truncated). It doesn't mention authentication requirements or any rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by tight Args and Returns blocks; every line conveys information not available elsewhere and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so documenting the return payload (count, returned, truncated, rows) is exactly the right compensation, and pagination semantics are covered. The only omission for a no-annotation tool is any note on auth/permissions for listing dashboards.

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, and it does: 'search' is explained as case-insensitive title substring matching, 'mine' as ownership by the logged-in user, and 'max_results' as a stop threshold with its default. All three parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (List) and resource (dashboards) plus salient scope details — drafts are included and all result pages are traversed — which separates it from superset_dashboard_get_by_id and the create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of naming any alternative tool explicitly, so 5 is not warranted.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool and that 'mine' and 'search' narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as dashboard_get_by_id for a single dashboard. Adequate but incomplete.

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