superset_query_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, page_size max (100), RISON filter syntax with examples, and get_all automatic pagination overriding page/page_size. It does not mention auth or permission requirements, but for a read-only list tool, the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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, front-loads the main purpose in one sentence, and uses well-structured 'Args' bullet points with minimal fluff. Every line earns its place, providing maximum information in a compact form.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers pagination, filtering, and get_all behavior thoroughly. It does not describe the return format, but the output schema likely handles that. It could briefly mention that this is for query history vs. saved queries, but the main sentence already implies it. Overall, adequate for a filtered-list tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: page (number), page_size (records per page, max 100), q (RISON filter with concrete examples for status and database), and get_all (ignores page/page_size). This is far richer than 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 'Retrieve the history of executed SQL queries' uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (history of executed SQL queries), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like superset_query_get (single query) and superset_saved_query_list (saved queries). The purpose is 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to list executed query history) and provides usage details like pagination and filtering. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools for comparison, but the scope is clear from the 'history of executed SQL queries' phrase.

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