get-dashboard-by-name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic retrieval operation with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the name.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks any structure (e.g., examples, use cases). It is adequate but not exemplary.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the fully qualified name should be formatted (beyond a brief example in the param description), or how it differs from 'get-dashboard'. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already conveys most parameter semantics. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, thus 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 'Get dashboard by fully qualified name' clearly identifies the action (Get) and the resource (dashboard), and specifies the key identifier (fully qualified name). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-dashboard' (presumably by ID), leaving room for ambiguity.

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 such as 'get-dashboard' (by ID) or other get-by-name tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent choose correctly among the many similar sibling tools.

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