superset_tag_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and returns a dictionary grouped by tag, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds some context about the return format but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, mentions the API endpoint, and describes the return value. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the return format for clarity.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks behavioral details like pagination, authentication needs, or error cases. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. It adds value by explaining the return structure ('dictionary with tagged objects grouped by tag'), compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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's purpose: 'Get objects associated with tags' and 'retrieve all objects that have tags assigned to them.' It specifies the verb ('get', 'retrieve') and resource ('objects associated with tags'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'superset_tag_list' or 'superset_tag_get_by_id', which focus on tags themselves rather than tagged objects.

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. It mentions the API endpoint but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this is for bulk retrieval or how it differs from other tag-related tools like 'superset_tag_object_add' or 'superset_tag_object_remove'.

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