get_dashboard_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether results are paginated, how the limit parameter affects results, or what the returned structure contains. It essentially restates the operation name without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 three-word description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action and object. There is no extraneous content; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, full annotation coverage, and a clear read-only purpose. The description is minimally viable, but it lacks any mention of pagination behavior (though the schema's default of 50 helps), does not distinguish when to use this vs. get_dashboard_group, and there is no output schema to clarify the return format. This is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the only parameter, 'limit', including its type, default value, and meaning ('Max results'). The description does not add anything about parameter usage, 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'dashboard groups' (plural), distinguishing it from the singular sibling get_dashboard_group and from create/update/delete variants. This gives an agent an unambiguous understanding of what the tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool as opposed to get_dashboard_group, get_dashboards, or other dashboard-related tools. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without routing support.

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