byok-observability-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (UID, title, folder, and tags) and that it's a list operation, which implies read-only behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and optional feature, the second specifies the return data. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness by stating the purpose, parameter use, and return fields. However, for a list operation with potential complexity (e.g., large result sets, filtering nuances), it lacks details on behavior like pagination, sorting, or error handling, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema fully documenting the optional 'query' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional search query' and that it filters 'by title,' which is already in the schema description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant enhancement.

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's purpose: 'List dashboards in Grafana' specifies the verb (list) and resource (dashboards). It distinguishes from siblings like grafana_get_dashboard (fetch specific dashboard) and grafana_list_alerts (list alerts instead), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The optional search query adds specificity.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'optional search query' for filtering, suggesting it's for browsing or searching dashboards. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like grafana_get_dashboard (for detailed view) or grafana_list_datasources (for other resources). No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are provided.

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