superset_chart_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the base64-encoded ZIP return format and the import compatibility, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any error behavior, or potential size/performance implications. This leaves some gaps in behavioral understanding.

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: a one-line purpose, a brief note on the output format and import workflow, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, input format, and return structure. It lacks error-handling details and explicit safety statements, but with the included Returns JSON example, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 schema has one required parameter (chart_ids) with no description (0% coverage). The description's Args section explicitly defines the comma-separated format with an example, adding meaning beyond the schema. This sufficiently compensates for the low coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Export') and identifies the resource ('charts') with the key differentiator 'with all dependencies (datasets, databases)' and the output format 'as a ZIP file'. This clearly distinguishes it from other export tools like superset_dashboard_export or superset_assets_export.

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?

It provides context that the tool exports charts with dependencies for backup/migration and mentions it can be imported back via superset_chart_import. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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