dashboards

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains CRUD operations and their effects, provides widget format examples, and specifies tag format requirements. It could mention rate limits or authentication, but it is generally transparent.

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 well-structured with bullet points for actions and examples for widget formats. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, parameter requirements (e.g., 'id' for get/update/delete), and provides formatting examples. The agent has sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds substantial value beyond parameter names: it explains what each action does, describes the 'config' object with widget examples, and clarifies tag format. This enriches understanding significantly.

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 provides access to Datadog dashboards and visualizations, and lists six distinct actions (list, get, create, update, delete, validate) with brief explanations. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like monitors, logs, etc.

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 gives guidance for each action (e.g., 'get' for learning patterns, 'validate' for debugging), which helps the agent choose appropriately. However, explicit 'when not to use' or comparative guidance against siblings is missing.

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