byok-observability-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns ('full details including all panels'), which is helpful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or response format details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and parameter requirement, the second provides essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns and how to obtain the required parameter. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the response structure or error conditions, though the essential information is present.

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 100% with the single parameter 'uid' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the UID is needed, but doesn't provide additional context about UID format, validation, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get full details'), the resource ('Grafana dashboard including all panels'), and the required identifier ('by its UID'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool grafana_list_dashboards by specifying that tool is needed to find the UID first.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get full details... by its UID') and provides a clear alternative for finding the UID ('Use grafana_list_dashboards to find the UID'). This gives complete guidance on the workflow between these two tools.

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