Get Grafana dashboard

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns 'complete dashboard JSON and metadata,' which gives some insight into the response shape. No additional behavioral context such as error cases, size limits, or auth requirements is disclosed, but the annotations keep this dimension at an adequate level.

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 sentence that directly states the operation and its expected output. It contains no filler or redundancy, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 fetch-by-UID tool with one documented required parameter, strong safety annotations, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. There is no need to describe return values in prose because the output schema exists, and no additional operational context seems necessary for correct invocation.

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%: the only paramter, uid, is documented as 'Grafana dashboard UID'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as where the UID comes from or how to find it. With complete schema documentation, baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the complete dashboard JSON and metadata.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from search_dashboards and analyze_dashboard by emphasizing the complete dashboard object. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with them, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 like search_dashboards or get_datasource. There is no mention of using a dashboard UID or that search should be used first to find the UID. The appropriate usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and parameter schema.

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