get_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' signals a read-only operation, and 'complete' and 'current content' clarify the scope of what is fetched, but the description does not mention caching, permissions, or whether the result is a live snapshot.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument getter and communicates the essential scope without unnecessary detail.

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 simple zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return scope. However, it lacks any indication of how get_dashboard relates to sibling tools like list_screens, leaving some routing ambiguity for the agent.

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 the schema fully documents the input side; this is the baseline case for a 0-parameter tool. The description reinforces that no arguments are needed by emphasizing that it returns the complete configuration and current content.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('dashboard configuration and current content'), with 'complete' defining the scope. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as list_screens.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_screens, render_preview, or update_region. The read-oriented wording implies retrieval, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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