list_dashboards

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

With readOnlyHint already declared, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a 5-minute result cache, account-wide scope, and the domain note that dashboards are the published, viewer-facing version of analyses. It stops short of describing pagination or result-size limits for a potentially large account-wide listing.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by scope and caching, then a compact field breakdown. Generally tight, though the bulleted field list overlaps with the output schema and adds a little 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope, caching, domain meaning, and return fields. Nothing essential is missing; only pagination/volume expectations are unaddressed.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the shape of each returned entry, which is extra detail beyond the zero-parameter schema, though it partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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 all QuickSight dashboards') and enumerates the fields returned (names, IDs, publish status). The 'Returns every dashboard in the account' clause implicitly separates it from search_dashboards, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 claim that it returns every dashboard implies a full-enumeration use case, and the field list hints at when the output is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion ('do not use when you need a filtered subset — use search_dashboards'), and no prerequisites stated, despite search_dashboards sitting right there in the sibling list.

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