superset_saved_query_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 states what will be retrieved and lists the specific fields (SQL text, schema, description), which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if ID not found), authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a read-only getter, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise: a one-line summary with the core purpose and return fields, followed by a compact Args section. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required ID. It omits error handling details, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity of the 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%, so the description must compensate. It defines saved_query_id as 'Saved query ID (from saved_query_list)', adding provenance context beyond the raw type 'integer' in the schema. This is helpful but minimal; no additional constraints or examples are given.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Retrieve a saved query by ID', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like superset_saved_query_list (list) and superset_saved_query_delete (delete). It also enumerates the key return fields (SQL text, schema, description), adding precision.

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 by instructing that the saved_query_id should come from saved_query_list, establishing a prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but for a simple get-by-ID tool, this is sufficient.

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