list_folder_dashboards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON string with list of dashboards') and optional pagination parameters, but it does not mention defaults, error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens if the folder does not exist.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence adds value, especially the fields example, without unnecessary elaboration.

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 straightforward folder-scoped listing tool, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and the return format. Minor gaps remain around pagination defaults and error conditions, but the overall definition is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 Args section explains every parameter, including what fields can be requested and that limit/page are optional. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all dashboards in a specific folder.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_dashboards and get_dashboard by emphasizing folder-scoped, unfiltered listing.

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 phrase 'in a specific folder' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the required folder_uid reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as choosing search_dashboards for broader searching.

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