Api journeys dashboard retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further — no indication of what the dashboard payload contains, whether results are user-scoped or permission-filtered, or whether the call is expensive. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds zero behavioral context.

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 text is a single token string with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose because there is no statement of purpose at all.

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?

For a retrieve endpoint with no output schema and an undocumented required identifier, the description should at minimum say what object the id identifies and what the response represents. Neither is present, so an agent has essentially nothing to act on beyond the name.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what the id refers to. It says nothing — the agent must guess whether 'id' is a journey UUID, a dashboard id, or a related object reference, and what happens with an unknown id.

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 is literally the tool name repeated back ('api_journeys_dashboard_retrieve') with underscores stripped. It conveys no verb+resource statement beyond what the identifier already implies, and it does not distinguish this dashboard endpoint from sibling journey endpoints such as journeys_retrieve or journey_steps_list.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance of any kind. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this returns chart data for a journey dashboard, aggregate counters, or a config object, nor when to prefer it over journeys_retrieve.

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