Export OpenSearch dashboard

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral depth: it discloses that non-dashboard ids return an embedded 404 in a normal response body rather than rejecting the request, so the agent must inspect the body. It also reveals size variability with concrete numbers (5 KB–130 KB, 20 KB median) and advises budgeting for the tail. This goes well beyond the annotations and no contradiction 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers the core action, the prerequisite tool, the type restriction, the error-handling nuance, the alternatives, the return value, and performance guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids filler, making it efficient despite its length.

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?

This tool has subtle behavior (embedded 404, large variable-sized exports) and the description addresses all of it: how to obtain valid ids, what happens with invalid types, what the output contains, and realistic size ranges. Even with an output schema present, the description provides essential context about panel layout and size characteristics, making it contextually complete.

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 schema description for dashboard_id is thorough (100% coverage): it defines the type, explains the source (malcolm_saved_objects row with type 'dashboard'), and explicitly warns about embedded 404 behavior for other types. The tool description reinforces this same information but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, 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 opens with 'Export one OpenSearch Dashboards dashboard as its full saved-object JSON,' which clearly identifies the verb (export), resource (dashboard), and output format. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it returns panel layout that no other tool returns, and contrasts with malcolm_saved_object_detail and malcolm_search.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after malcolm_saved_objects — the only tool here that lists the ids this takes.' It also provides when-not-to-use direction by recommending malcolm_saved_object_detail for visualization/saved-search/index-pattern ids and malcolm_search for network traffic, covering both prerequisites and alternatives.

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