get_dashboard_group

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context: lists specific return fields (name, full path, parentId, etc.) and explains the tool returns 'complete dashboard group details'. This goes beyond annotations by detailing output structure, which is important since no output schema exists.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear headings (Returns, When to use, Workflow, Related tools). Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It details the return fields, provides usage scenarios, a workflow, and related tools. It fully prepares the agent to select and invoke the tool 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 both parameters ('groupId' and 'fields') are already described in the input schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions groupId contextually in the workflow. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'dashboard group', with specific context ('by its ID in LogicMonitor monitoring'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_dashboard_groups' and 'get_dashboard' by focusing on a single group and providing detailed return info.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios (e.g., 'Get group path for documentation', 'Review permissions before creating dashboards'). Includes workflow ('Use list_dashboard_groups to find groupId') and related tools with clear purposes. No explicit when-not, but context is sufficient.

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