superset_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks JWT auth, current-user access, and optional OpenAPI availability, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety (e.g., read-only, no state changes). The lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a moderate gap, though the nature of a status check mitigates risk.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all key validation targets without waste. It is concise, grammatical, and immediately conveys the tool's scope.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the description covering all main validation points, the context is largely complete. It could add nuance about failure modes or what 'configuration' entails, but the essential information for selecting and invoking the tool is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mentioning 'optional OpenAPI availability,' which maps to the check_openapi parameter. However, it does not explicitly state the boolean's effect (e.g., false disables the check), relying on the parameter name. This is adequate but not richly explanatory.

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 tool validates configuration, JWT authentication, current-user access, and optional OpenAPI availability. The verb 'validate' and specific resources make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools that operate on saved queries, charts, and datasets.

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 implies this is a health/status check, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or recommended call patterns. As a standalone status tool among data-operation siblings, the context is somewhat clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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