Grafana: Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it states the return fields (uid, title, folder, tags, URL), the default no-argument listing behavior, and the natural follow-up action. It omits ordering and pagination nuance beyond the limit parameter, keeping it just short of fully transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the search criteria first, then the returned fields and follow-up action. The no-arguments behavior is placed last, which is appropriate.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough: it explains what is searched, what is returned, and how to use the result. Minor omissions such as ordering or pagination semantics are not critical for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents each parameter's meaning, enum, default, and constraints. The description echoes the main filtering dimensions and mentions the no-argument default, but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the exact resources ('dashboards and folders') plus the searchable facets. It also disambiguates from siblings by directing the agent to grafana_get_dashboard when a uid is needed.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool (to locate dashboards/folders and then fetch one by uid) and what happens with no arguments. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools such as grafana_list_datasources or grafana_list_alert_rules, so the alternative routing is only partially covered.

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