Get dashboard

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main added value is disclosing the return structure (panels, targets, templating, time, folder, version, url) and its role as the editable model. It does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid UIDs, or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool the added context is substantive.

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, zero waste, with the core return content front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by specifying either the output shape or the downstream use.

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 by-UID retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (full model plus meta) and how it fits into an edit workflow. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single uid parameter already documented as coming from search. The description only repeats that the tool works 'for a dashboard UID' and adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Return) and resource (full dashboard JSON model), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by specifying the full model including panels, targets, templating, and time. An agent can immediately tell this is a by-UID retrieval tool, not a listing or search tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: to obtain the editable model for a dashboard UID, especially for passing to create_or_update_dashboard. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_dashboards or search, nor does it state when not to use it (e.g., when only a summary is needed).

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