list_dashboards

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and specifies the returned fields. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but with zero parameters and an output schema present, this is a minor omission.

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 tightly worded sentence with no filler. Action, scope, and output fields are all front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it states the resource type, the tenant scope, the 'all' filter, and the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('List all') and identifies a precise resource ('observability dashboards in the tenant') while naming the returned fields (id, name, panel count). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_dashboard, create_dashboard, update_dashboard, and 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 'all' and 'in the tenant' phrasing establishes that this is the enumeration tool, and sibling names make the contrast with single-dashboard operations obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative, though for a simple list-all tool the context is clear.

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