Get DataLens dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: payloads are routinely 100 KB+ and may be truncated by the client, with a concrete workaround, and that `entry.data` is the exact payload `dashboards_update` consumes.

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 tight sentences that front-load the resource and its contents before the size caveat. The CLI snippet is useful but slightly interrupts flow, and the closing line about `entry.data` is a fragment, so it is efficient rather than polished.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (tabs and their widgets) and the `entry.data` payload, plus the truncation risk. It stops short of covering the optional include_* enrichments or revision semantics, but the core is adequately covered.

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%, so branch, rev_id, workbook_id and the three include_* flags are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g. no guidance on combining branch vs rev_id), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource and enumerates what a retrieved dashboard contains (tabs, charts, selectors, texts), which is far more informative than 'get'. It also implicitly ties the tool to `dashboards_update` via the `entry.data` note, giving some sibling orientation, though it does not contrast against near neighbours like `datalens_entries_list`.

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?

It gives a practical operating hint – read a large dashboard as a file via the CLI when the response exceeds what a client displays – which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as `datalens_entries_list` or `datalens_workbooks_get`, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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