get_dashboard_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not mention the write side effect implied by the output_file parameter, nor does it describe response format, whether the function returns JSON in addition to writing to a file, or any auth/rate-limit requirements.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get full dashboard details') and enriched with specific inclusions. Every word adds value; no unnecessary elaboration.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essentials: what it returns and where results go. However, ambiguity remains about whether the function also returns the JSON directly or only writes to the file, and it does not cover potential errors or limitations of the 'full' representation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described ('Dashboard ID' and 'file path where full JSON results will be written'). The description adds context about the contents (tabs, dashcards, parameters), which helps understand the output_file meaning, but does not add parameter-specific syntax or formatting details beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('full dashboard details'), and specifies relevant components (tabs, dashcards, parameters). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_dashboards (search vs full retrieval) and create/update dashboard 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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as obtaining a dashboard ID via search_dashboards, or when not to use it (e.g., for lighter-weight metadata). The description simply restates its purpose without contextual usage advice.

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