search_dashboards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of dashboard objects), pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parallel structure ('by title, tags, or other metadata'). Every word contributes directly to understanding what the tool does, making it appropriately concise for a search operation.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'other metadata', how search results are returned, whether there are sorting options, or what authentication is required. For a search tool in what appears to be a dashboard management system (based on sibling tools), users need more context about result format and search capabilities.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions searching 'by title, tags, or other metadata', which hints at the purpose of 'query' and 'tags' parameters but doesn't cover 'starred', 'folderId', 'type', or 'limit'. It provides no syntax, format details, or constraints beyond the bare mention. With low schema coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the documentation gap.

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 tool's purpose as 'Search for dashboards by title, tags, or other metadata', which includes a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('dashboards'). It distinguishes this from obvious siblings like 'get_dashboard_by_uid' (which retrieves a single dashboard) and 'list_folders' (which lists folders rather than dashboards). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential search-related tools that might exist in the broader context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_by_uid' (for retrieving a specific dashboard by UID) or 'list_folders' (for browsing dashboard containers). There's no indication of when this search tool is preferred over direct retrieval methods.

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