get_dashboard_group

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, which already signal a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., whether it returns nested widgets or requires permissions). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for merely confirming the intent.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words, and it serves its purpose without verbosity.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it doesn't state what details are returned (e.g., name, widgets) or clarify the relationship to dashboard groups, which could be useful. Given the low complexity and high schema coverage, a 3 is fair.

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%, so the parameter 'group_id' is already described as 'Dashboard group ID'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning (e.g., how to find the ID). At high coverage, baseline 3 is correct.

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) and resource (dashboard group), and likely distinguishes it from siblings like get_dashboard_groups (list) and get_dashboard. It doesn't mention scope or specifics, but the verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 such as get_dashboard_groups or get_dashboard. An agent must infer from the name alone. There is no mention of prerequisites or context in which this tool is appropriate.

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