Find Dashboards saved objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that 'This is catalogue metadata only' and that the output JSON is {"total", "showing", "objects"}. It also discloses the unusual quirk that malcolm_dashboard_export 'answers 200 with an embedded 404' for non-dashboard ids, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear topic sentence, followed by usage guidance, cross-tool references, and a note on return format. At roughly 150 words it is longer than strictly necessary but every sentence provides useful context, and the front-loaded purpose makes it 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?

The tool has an output schema, and the description supplements it by noting the JSON envelope and why panel layout is absent. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, exclusions, and related tools, making it a self-contained guide for an agent.

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 complete, rich descriptions for all three parameters (limit, search, object_type), including wildcard behavior and case-insensitivity, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states; it relies on the schema.

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 'Find the dashboards, visualizations and saved searches this Malcolm ships,' which names the specific resource (pre-built saved objects) and verb (find). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to malcolm_saved_object_detail for query details, malcolm_dashboard_export for dashboard structure, and malcolm_search for traffic.

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 says 'Use this to discover what pre-built analysis already exists before building a query by hand' and draws clear boundaries: 'This searches the Dashboards catalogue, NOT network traffic: for traffic use malcolm_search, and for the field names behind a visualization use malcolm_field_search.' Also directs to sibling tools for different object types.

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