get_dashboard_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('JSON string') and what the result contains ('complete panel definition including queries, transforms, and display settings'). It does not mention error cases or permissions, but for a read-only retrieval tool the provided detail is solid.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a usage hint, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is concise and front-loaded, though there is slight redundancy between 'Returns complete panel definition' and the later 'Returns: JSON string with complete panel configuration.'

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 read operation with three required scalar parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It provides usage context, parameter meanings, and return content. It could more explicitly differentiate from get_dashboard_panels and note failure behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, yet the description's Args section provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: connection_name, dashboard_uid, and panel_id. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and gives an agent enough to populate each argument correctly.

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 action: 'Get full configuration for a single panel from a dashboard.' It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing 'single panel' and mentions specific contents ('queries, transforms, and display settings'). The reference to get_dashboard_info() as a predecessor further clarifies where this tool fits.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after get_dashboard_info() to explore specific panels in detail,' giving a clear workflow context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative panel-fetching siblings, but the 'single panel' scoping provides enough directional guidance.

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