kibana_get_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by stating it makes a GET request, returns dashboard metadata and panel summary, and does not return log data. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the output nature and API call, but could mention potential error cases (e.g., ID not found) for slightly higher score.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, the API call, return structure, and usage examples. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action and includes bullet-point examples for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (including specific fields like panels_count), and what it does not do (log data). It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema already provides a full description for the single parameter 'dashboard_id', including format and a hint to use 'kibana_list_dashboards' for discovery. The tool description reinforces this hint with examples, adding value by showing how to obtain the ID. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds contextual usage, a 4 is appropriate, slightly above 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 clearly states 'Fetch a single Kibana dashboard with panel details.' and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'kibana_list_dashboards' (which lists dashboards) and 'kibana_search_logs' (which searches logs). It specifies the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'Kibana dashboard', making the purpose explicit and unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit 'Use when' examples (e.g., to get panels of a specific dashboard) and 'Don't use when' examples (e.g., when missing the ID or needing log data), directing users to alternative tools like 'kibana_list_dashboards' and 'kibana_search_logs'. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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