superset_database_related_objects

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' and the phrase 'understand what will break' clearly convey a read-only analysis operation without side effects. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', but the intent is unambiguous and it adds contextual value beyond the name.

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 extremely tight: two sentences plus a one-line arg doc. It front-loads purpose, then adds a practical use case, then documents the parameter. No filler or redundant content, while still including all essential information.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, why it is useful, and how the parameter is used. It doesn't need to explain return values as the output schema presumably handles that. The mention of datasets and charts gives sufficient preview of the result 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting the only parameter ('database_id: Database connection ID.'). This gives the agent necessary semantic meaning for the integer type, though it is minimal and doesn't elaborate on formatting or defaults.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('objects related to a database connection') and explicitly enumerates the object types (datasets, charts). It also states the operational context ('before deleting a connection'), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like database_get or database_tables.

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 gives a concrete usage scenario ('Useful before deleting a connection to understand what will break'), which clearly indicates when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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