get_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the return content (panels, layout, variables, time range, visual settings) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but for a simple read tool this is adequate and adds value beyond the minimal 'Get dashboard'.

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?

Two sentences, 28 words, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then supplementary detail. Absolutely no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the scope of the returned configuration, and since an output schema exists, further elaboration on return values is unnecessary.

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% (dashboard_id is self-explanatory). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a dashboard's full configuration' with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'dashboard's full configuration'. It also enumerates the included elements (panels, layout, variables, time range, visual settings), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_dashboards or delete_dashboard.

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 context by stating that it returns the complete configuration, implying it should be used when the full dashboard definition is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer correct usage.

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