datadog_list_dashboards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that—no pagination behavior, no mention of the filter_shared option, no return shape—so it contributes no behavioral context.

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?

It is a single clean sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise—there is no front-loaded scope, return, or filtering detail to reward.

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-only list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the minimal description is adequate to call the tool. It still omits any indication of result volume or how filter_shared changes the set, which would help an agent plan the call.

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 100%, so api_key, app_key, and filter_shared are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning, such as what filter_shared actually surfaces, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (list) and resource (Datadog dashboards), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as datadog_list_monitors or datadog_list_events, so differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the monitor, event, or metric-query siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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