superset_rls_get

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 only says 'Get detailed information'—implying a read operation—but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, error behavior, or response characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise, using only two sentences (or lines) to convey the tool's purpose and parameter hint. Every word contributes useful information, with no filler or redundant content.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It lacks a bit of surrounding context, such as any preconditions beyond having an ID, or what to do if the rule doesn't exist, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema.

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 only describes rls_id as an integer, but the description enriches it with the note '(from rls_list)', clarifying the ID's source and how to obtain it. With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, this added context is valuable and makes the parameter easier to use correctly.

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: 'Get detailed information about an RLS rule by ID.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinctly stands out from sibling tools like superset_rls_list, superset_rls_create, etc., as the fetch-one variant.

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 hints at usage by specifying 'rls_id: RLS rule ID (from rls_list)', which tells the agent where to obtain the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. listing rules or other RLS operations, leaving the primary usage context 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.