superset_database_select_star

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does explain the schema default behavior and that the query includes a LIMIT. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool executes the query or merely returns the SQL text, and it does not mention any permissions or side effects. This ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured Args list that adds necessary semantic details. The Args list is a bit redundant with the schema parameter names but justifies its presence by providing explanations. It is efficient and well-organized, though not maximally compact.

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 is relatively simple, with 3 parameters and an output schema present. The description explains all parameters and provides usage context. It does not mention the exact LIMIT value or explicitly state that the query is not executed, but given the output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains all three parameters: database_id is the 'Database connection ID', table_name is the 'Table name', and schema_name is the 'Schema (e.g. "public"). If not specified, uses the default schema.' This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for zero schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate a SELECT * SQL query for a table (with LIMIT).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like superset_database_table_metadata (which retrieves metadata) and superset_sqllab_execute (which executes queries). The purpose is immediately understandable and 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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for quickly inspecting table structure and data.' This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since it gives a clear context without exclusions, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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