get_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions that the response includes insights and widgets, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe error behavior (e.g., not found), or note any permissions. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but the lack of explicit safety information and only minimal response detail leaves some gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and includes relevant response content. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and indicates what the response will include. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to list_dashboards, and does not describe pagination or error handling, but given the tool's low complexity, the description is largely complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for dashboard_id ('The dashboard ID to retrieve') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, such as format, constraints, or examples, so it does not enhance what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', identifies the resource as a 'specific PostHog dashboard by ID', and specifies expected content ('insights and widgets'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dashboards, which would list dashboards rather than retrieve a single one.

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 description implies usage when a dashboard ID is known to fetch that single dashboard, and the emphasis on 'specific' and 'by ID' sets clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_dashboards for finding dashboard IDs or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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