Grafana: Get Dashboard

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely useful cost/omission detail: summary drops layout, styling and overrides ("typically half the JSON"), full "can be tens of KB" and carries `version`. It stops short of error behavior (unknown uid, missing/invalid panel_id) but discloses the main behavioral trade-offs of each mode.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then ordered by mode, with the sibling redirect last where an agent will look for it. Dense but no filler; the one compressed clause ("the layout, styling and overrides left out, typically half the JSON") takes a re-read but earns its space.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden — and it does: it enumerates what summary contains (variables, panels with id/type/unit/queries), what panel returns (full panel JSON), and what full returns (whole JSON plus `version`). Combined with the save/query cross-references, an agent has enough to pick a mode and call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what each enum value of `view` actually yields and the conditional dependency that panel_id is required only for view=panel — semantics the terse schema enum text does not convey. `uid` and `panel_id` sourcing are left to the schema, which already handles them well.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Read a dashboard") immediately followed by the three operating modes, each with a concrete definition of what is returned. It differentiates from siblings by naming grafana_save_dashboard (round-trip consumer of view=full) and grafana_run_panel_query (data instead of query text).

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?

Explicitly routes each need to a mode: summary is the default for 'what is on it', panel needs panel_id, full is what save_dashboard needs back. It also names the correct alternative for a different intent ("To see the DATA a panel shows, use grafana_run_panel_query instead of reading its query and re-typing it"), including the anti-pattern to avoid.

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