List dashboards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no pagination behavior, no default limit, no note on how many results come back. It is essentially a name expansion.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the sibling-relationship note second. Every clause earns its place.

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-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is close to adequate but leaves the `limit` parameter and any pagination/result-count behavior unexplained. Minor but real gaps remain.

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 coverage is 50%: `tag` is described in the schema and echoed in the description, while `limit` has only min/max bounds and no prose anywhere. The description confirms the tag filter's purpose but does not compensate for the undocumented limit semantics (default value, cap of 1000).

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 dashboards) and adds a scoping note (optional tag filter) plus an equivalence to the sibling `search` with type=dash-db. That differentiates it from get_dashboard and search, though it does not explicitly name get_dashboard as the single-item alternative.

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 'shorthand for search with type=dash-db' clause implies when this is preferable to the generic search tool, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or when to reach for search/list_folders instead. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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