superset_dashboard_embedded_get

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the 404 error condition and the dependency on a prior embedded_set call, which is valuable beyond the name/schema. It does not cover auth or response format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that. Overall, it adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise: a one-line purpose, a critical IMPORTANT note, and a simple Args section. Every sentence earns its place. The important warning is front-loaded, making it easy for the agent to notice. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (one integer parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the essential behavior (404 if not configured) and the prerequisite relationship. It is complete for a getter tool of this scope.

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 only states 'dashboard_id: Dashboard ID,' which is essentially a restatement of the parameter name and adds no new meaning (e.g., format, source, constraints). The schema already provides the type as integer, so the description contributes little to parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Get the embedding (embedded) settings of a dashboard.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('dashboard embedded settings'), and the sibling tools (embedded_set, embedded_delete) are distinct by operation. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly notes a key prerequisite: the tool returns 404 if embedded mode has not been configured via embedded_set. This tells the agent when to use it (after setup) and provides a practical constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious. This is clear guidance, though not fully exhaustive.

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