legacy_dashboard_get

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

The description ('Get') is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, but it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already provides. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or output characteristics.

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 very concise at only 5 words, which is efficient for a simple operation. However, it could include slightly more context without becoming verbose, such as mentioning the output schema or usage hints.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return values. However, it fails to provide any additional context about when or why to use this tool, making it minimally adequate for a simple get-by-id operation.

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 schema provides a description for the single parameter ('Legacy dashboard ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('legacy SQL dashboard'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like legacy_dashboards_list (list vs get) and lakeview_dashboard_get (different dashboard type). However, it does not elaborate on what 'legacy' implies or differentiate further.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having a dashboard ID, or suggest using legacy_dashboards_list for discovery. The description is silent on usage context.

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