Search dashboards & folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (title, uid, type, folder, tags) in the absence of an output schema, though it says nothing about limit/pagination behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then usage ordering, then return shape. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of return fields is genuinely needed and present. It omits guidance on the undocumented 'limit' parameter and default result behavior, a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter search tool.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents itself. The description restates the tag/name matching dimension and repeats the type enum values already present in the schema, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Search dashboards and folders by name/tag') and clarifies scope by naming the searchable fields. It distinguishes itself from get_dashboard, though it does not differentiate from the sibling list_dashboards/list_folders, which overlap in intent.

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 instructs the agent to 'use this first to find a dashboard's UID before get_dashboard,' giving a concrete sequencing rule. It lacks a when-not clause or a comparison against list_dashboards, but the usage context is clear.

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