get_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and clarifies the data scope (history/status), but does not disclose potential errors, permissions, response shape, or rate limits. It provides some value beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate but does not explain what 'details' includes or how it differs from get_saved_query. Given no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 description mentions 'query ID' which aligns with the sole parameter query_id, but adds little beyond the schema: the schema already defines query_id as an integer. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description's 'by query ID' is essentially redundant, though it does confirm the parameter is the identifier for the query.

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 specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'Superset query history/status details' with a clear access method 'by query ID'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_saved_query or get_sql_result by focusing on history/status rather than saved definitions or result sets.

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 clearly implies when to use: when you need query history/status details by ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous enough for the intended purpose.

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