list_device_dashboards

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behaviors: required permission levels, 403 on insufficient rights, no paging, always returning all items, and that envelope page/per_page will be null. This is substantive behavioral information that annotations alone do not provide.

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 organized with a leading purpose sentence, followed by prerequisite, authorization, and pagination behavior. Each sentence adds distinct, necessary information and there is no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers how to obtain the required parameter, required permissions, the error case, and pagination semantics. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without an output schema.

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 describes tenant_id as a UUID obtainable via list_tenants, and the description largely repeats this. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds permission context but not new parameter semantic details.

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 states a specific action and resource: '地点用ダッシュボードの一覧を取得します' (retrieves the list of site/location dashboards). The resource is clear from the name and description, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_tenant_dashboards or list_group_dashboards, so sibling differentiation rests mostly on the tool name.

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 clear usage context: tenant_id should be obtained via list_tenants, required permission levels are described, and the 403 failure case is specified. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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