get_dashboard_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully describes the return shape (title/views/cards), which is valuable, but says nothing about what happens when the dashboard does not exist, permission requirements, or the meaning/behavior of the default url_path.

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 with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact structural example. No wasted prose, though the inline pseudo-JSON is slightly cryptic to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics—and the structure sketch does that partially. However, the url_path parameter, its default, and failure behavior remain undocumented, leaving gaps for a config-reading tool.

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 single url_path parameter (default 'default') is never mentioned or explained in the description. The JSON structure shown describes the return value, not the parameter, so the description adds no meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Return the full Lovelace config of a dashboard'. The read verb distinguishes it from write siblings like set_dashboard_config, update_dashboard_metadata, and append_dashboard_view. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the read/write split is inferable from the verb.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_dashboards, set_dashboard_config, or the view/card manipulation siblings. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no conditions under which this should be preferred—just a statement of what it returns.

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