search_dashboards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the search functionality and implies read-only use ('find what is already instrumented'), but does not mention potential limitations, pagination, or return format. It adds only minimal behavioral detail beyond the tool name and schema, leaving the agent to infer common search semantics.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence gives the core action and criteria, front-loading the most important information. The second sentence adds usage guidance with no fluff. Every word earns its place, achieving conciseness without losing substance.

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 search tool with all optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and provides a usage workflow, including the next step. It does not explicitly mention the return type (e.g., a list of dashboard references), but the follow-up 'then get_dashboard' implies that the results are dashboard identifiers, making the missing detail a minor gap.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage context (e.g., 'find what is already instrumented') but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Title substring' and 'Filter by dashboard tag'. It reinforces but doesn't extend the parameter docs.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('dashboards'), and criteria ('by title or tag'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from get_dashboard by implying that search_dashboards finds dashboards while get_dashboard reads their content, and from query tools by focusing on discovery rather than data retrieval.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool ('before writing a query from scratch') and provides a follow-up action ('then get_dashboard to read the panel queries'). This gives the agent a clear workflow and implies when not to use it (e.g., when querying data directly, use query_sql/query_metrics).

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