list_dashboards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no dashboards exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List dashboards'), making it immediately clear. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and scope.

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 simple list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits (due to no annotations) and usage guidelines. Given the low complexity, it's complete enough to understand what it does, but not how to use it effectively.

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 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as typical usage patterns or semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 ('List') and resource ('dashboards'), and specifies scope ('for the account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard' or 'list_dashboard_templates', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_dashboard' (for a single dashboard) or 'list_dashboard_templates'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, filtering options, or any explicit when/when-not instructions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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