List Dashboards

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's main added value is the retrieval scope. It says nothing about pagination limits or that the response is truncated by default, which matters for a tool claiming to return "all" dashboards.

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?

Purpose and trigger conditions are front-loaded in two short blocks, with no filler prose. The <examples> block is largely redundant for a zero-required-parameter call, adding length without new information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more: it names the returned fields (ID, title) but omits pagination behavior and the fact that widget details are stripped by default, both of which affect whether "all dashboards" is actually returned.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, and summary are fully documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no syntax, range, or usage nuance beyond the schema — the only weak hint is "ID and title," which gestures at summary=true. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve all dashboards from Mackerel") and the user goal it serves ("Get ID and title of each dashboard"). It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_dashboard, but list-vs-get is self-evident from the naming.

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 "USE THIS TOOL WHEN USERS" block gives concrete triggering conditions (listing dashboards, needing IDs and titles), which an agent can match intent against. No when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., get_dashboard for a single dashboard) is provided.

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