dashboard.get_dashboard_share

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds meaningful context: it resolves the dashboard by title, maps shareId to email or group name, defines the returned entry shape, and clarifies that an empty list genuinely means no shares. The only weakness is that the failure-case sentence is truncated, leaving exact failure behavior unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only essential behavioral details: resolution strategy, name mapping, return structure, empty-list meaning, and a failure note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structured formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the call scenario, output shape, and empty-list semantics well. The only notable gap is the incomplete failure sentence—an agent still cannot tell whether a missing dashboard results in an exception, None, or an error object.

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%: dashboard_name is already fully documented as the dashboard title. The description reinforces that the tool resolves by title but does not need to add further parameter syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 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 read operation—retrieve share details (users and groups) for a dashboard—and clearly scopes it by title rather than by ID. This distinguishes it from siblings like dashboard_get_dashboard_by_id and dashboard_get_all_dashboards without needing to open their schemas.

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 the right usage context: an agent with a dashboard title who wants share details should use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over related tools such as access_management_get_all_dashboard_shares or dashboard_get_dashboard_by_id, nor does it state exclusions.

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