superset_permissions_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple read operation by explaining the exact calculation logic (dashboard visibility AND data access), the possible value 'visible_no_data' meaning 'can open but charts fail,' and that admins have access to everything. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but given the tool's nature, this is adequate.

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 well-structured with an initial overview, bullet-pointed output details, and a clear Args section. It is relatively lengthy, but each part adds necessary information for a complex audit tool. The front-loaded purpose sentence is strong, and the layout makes it 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description still provides substantial context beyond the schema. It explains the output structure, the logic behind access values, the RLS regions, and parameter behaviors. This makes the tool's behavior fully understandable without needing to invoke it experimentally.

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 for missing parameter meaning. The 'Args' section provides complete semantics for all four parameters, including types, defaults, constraints (max 50 pages), and behavior (substring match for username, admin inclusion). This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 'Audit access rights: user x dashboards/datasets/RLS permission matrix,' which clearly specifies the tool's purpose and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_permission_list or superset_role_permissions_get, which focus on simpler permission listings rather than a comprehensive per-user audit across multiple resource types.

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 clearly implies the tool is for auditing access rights and provides a detailed breakdown of what it returns, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as superset_user_list or superset_role_permissions_get, nor does it state when NOT to use it. Thus, usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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