get_dashboard_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (JSON string with list of dashboard versions) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication, errors, or any other side effects. This is minimal but adequate for a simple getter.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the purpose and parameters without any fluff.

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 getter tool with two parameters and no output schema in the prompt, the description provides sufficient information: what it does, the parameters, and the return type. It does not miss any critical context, though it could mention pagination or ordering if applicable.

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 only provides titles, but the description explains each parameter: 'connection_name: Name of the Grafana connection' and 'dashboard_uid: UID of the dashboard.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, achieving full coverage of the two parameters.

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) and the resource (version history of a dashboard), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_dashboard, get_dashboard_info, and get_dashboard_panels.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when you need version history), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide conditions for choosing this tool over others. The sibling list adds context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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