list_cards_in_dashboards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic function without mentioning that it is read-only, whether pagination exists, error conditions, or any performance implications. The agent lacks crucial information about how the tool operates.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to be fully informative, sacrificing necessary details for brevity. It earns its place but could benefit from expansion.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single nested parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the returned data (e.g., list of dashboard objects or IDs), pagination, or error handling. An agent cannot fully understand what to expect without additional context.

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 input schema has one parameter 'input' containing 'card_ids'. The description merely paraphrases 'specified cards' and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description ('Array of card IDs to look up'). With schema coverage effectively low (0% context signal), the description fails to compensate, missing details about format constraints or usage.

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 the resource ('dashboards that contain the specified cards'). The plural 'cards' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_card_dashboards', which likely handles a single card. This provides specific verb and resource identification while differentiating from alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_card_dashboards'. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor any context about prerequisites or preferred use cases. The agent receives no decision-making support.

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