listJiraDashboards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the permission-scoping trait ('visible to the current user'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination defaults or result shape for a list endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, though its brevity is achieved by omitting information rather than by being efficient.

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 3-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of filtering behavior, the description leaves the agent without pagination semantics, filter semantics, or result expectations. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. An agent gets no help understanding startAt/maxResults pagination or that dashboardName is a filter, which is exactly the gap the description should fill at low 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 names the specific resource (Jira dashboards) and scopes it to those 'visible to the current user', so an agent understands the operation despite the verb 'list' only appearing in the name/title. It does not differentiate from siblings like listJiraFilters or listJiraBoards, which are superficially similar listing tools.

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?

'for discovery and linking workflows' gestures at a context but never states when to call this instead of listJiraFilters, listJiraBoards, or searchJiraIssuesUsingJql. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance.

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