superset_report_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explains key behaviors: reports send scheduled screenshots, alerts trigger on non-empty SQL results, and recipients follow a specific JSON format. It lacks explicit mention of permissions, return values, or error handling, but the operational behavior is well 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 well-structured with a clear summary, separated report/alert guidance, and a readable Args list. It's slightly verbose but every section adds value with examples and clarifications.

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 9-parameter schema with no descriptions, the description is quite complete and covers all parameters. Minor gaps include not explicitly stating conditional requirements (e.g., dashboard or chart required for Report, database and sql for Alert) and not mentioning response/return value, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with examples (crontab formats, recipients JSON structure, SQL condition semantics). It adds meaning beyond the schema's raw types and 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Create a report or alert') and distinguishes between the two modes, which differentiates it from sibling tools like update/delete. It also explains the resource types and their purpose.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use Report vs Alert ('For Report: specify dashboard or chart' / 'For Alert: specify database and sql'), which guides parameter selection. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the distinction is strong.

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