Dashboards: list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the exact attribute set returned, the home/default/shared classification, and that the payload is JSON. It does not mention pagination or result-size behavior, which is the only notable gap for a list tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields, with the routing guidance last. The middle sentence defining a dashboard as 'a grid of widgets' is mildly tangential but earns its place by making the relationship to dashboards_get concrete; overall tightly written with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, what fields come back, and which sibling to use next. Minor omissions such as pagination or ordering prevent a 5, but an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax or format for the description to clarify, and the text correctly does not invent any.

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 and resource ('List the dashboards you can see') and immediately enumerates the returned attributes (id, name, owner, home/default/shared). It also names the sibling tools it is not (dashboards_get, dashboards_mine), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: use dashboards_get to inspect a dashboard's widgets and dashboards_mine for the one you land on. The when-to-use-this vs. alternatives decision is fully spelled out rather than implied.

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