get_dashboard_by_uid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get full dashboard details') and adds necessary qualification ('using its unique identifier'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' returns, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It clarifies that 'uid' is a 'unique identifier' for the dashboard, but doesn't specify format, source, or constraints (e.g., length, where to find it). With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some context but falls short of fully compensating.

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 ('Get full dashboard details') and resource ('dashboard'), and specifies the method ('using its unique identifier'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_dashboards' (which likely returns multiple dashboards) and 'get_dashboard_versions' (which focuses on version history). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'full details' includes, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage when you have a specific dashboard UID and need detailed information, contrasting with 'search_dashboards' for broader queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if you only need basic info or panel queries) or alternatives for related tasks, leaving some ambiguity.

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