Get Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'full configuration' detail, indicating the complete payload is returned, but it does not discuss error scenarios, permissions, or other non-safety behaviors. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 main description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. The Args block is redundant with the schema but is brief and does not add significant clutter. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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, read-only, idempotent) and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what it retrieves and how. A mention of when to prefer this over list_dashboards would improve completeness, but the core information is present.

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 provides no parameter description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the 'name' parameter is the dashboard's name, but this is only a minimal restatement of the parameter's title. It adds no detail about format, uniqueness, or validation, which is acceptable for a simple getter but does not go beyond the obvious.

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 action (retrieve), the resource (a dashboard's full configuration), and the qualifier (by name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dashboards, which lists dashboards, and save_dashboard/delete_dashboard, which modify them.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: retrieve a specific dashboard's full configuration by name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that the usage scenario is unambiguous.

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