superset_chart_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that results span every page, that output is truncated when the cap is hit, and that max_results defaults to 500. It does not mention authentication/permission requirements or performance cost of broad scans, which is a real gap for a list tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and scope, then a short row-shape sentence, then a routing pointer, then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence carries information (row fields, filters, truncation semantics) and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (count, returned, truncated, chart rows) and row fields. Combined with full parameter documentation and pagination/truncation semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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, and it documents all four parameters with semantics the schema lacks: search is case-insensitive name-contains, dashboard_id scopes to one dashboard, mine scopes to the logged-in user, and max_results is a stop-after threshold with a default. This is exactly the compensation a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List charts') and immediately narrows scope ('across every page of results, one compact row per chart'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that returns full detail ('Use superset_chart_get_by_id for a chart's full definition'), so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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?

Clear routing guidance is present: use this tool for compact list rows, and switch to superset_chart_get_by_id when the full chart definition is needed. Filter intent is also spelled out per parameter. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g., cost of listing thousands of charts or preference for dashboard-scoped queries), so 4 rather than 5.

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