superset_chart_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, the get_all automatic pagination that ignores page/page_size, and the role of the q parameter with RISON filter examples. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or error/rate-limit behavior, but the 'List' verb and the lookup-focused guidance cover the core behavioral traits adequately.

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 brief purpose line, a high-priority usage note, and a clearly formatted parameter list with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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's complexity is moderate (pagination, filtering, get_all), and the description covers these aspects thoroughly. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. The prerequisite guidance and parameter examples make it complete for an agent to select and use the tool effectively.

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%, but the description compensates fully with a dedicated Args section. Each parameter (page, page_size, q, get_all) is explained, and the q parameter includes concrete RISON examples for filtering by name, type, and dataset. This goes well beyond the bare 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 opens with 'List Superset charts with pagination,' which clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (Superset charts), and scope (with pagination). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it should be called before chart_get/chart_delete to look up chart IDs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit 'IMPORTANT: always call this tool before chart_get/chart_delete' instruction, which gives a clear when-to-use directive and a specific workflow context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for different scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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