get_slicer_defaults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses READ-ONLY behavior and details what is returned (bound field, flags, display mode, default filter values). The mention of 'Categorical filters in the slicer's own container' adds implementation nuance. It doesn't cover error behavior or rate limits, but for a read tool this is a strong 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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY', then specific attributes, then scope. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no filler.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is read, the scope, and its relationship to sibling setters. It does not describe return format, but the listed fields imply that. The absence of output schema is compensated by enumerating the return contents.

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 50%: only 'page' has a schema description. The tool description adds value by clarifying the page parameter ('Scope to one page or omit for all pages'), which matches the schema. The reportSessionId parameter is self-explanatory by name, and the description doesn't add to it, but the added page semantics justify above baseline.

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 reads back every slicer's selection state, listing specific properties (bound field, flags, display mode, default values). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_slicer_selection and fix_slicer_single_select as read partners, and mentions the scope (one page or all). This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 explicitly positions itself as the 'read partner' of set_slicer_selection and fix_slicer_single_select, indicating when to use it in relation to those tools. It also clarifies scope via 'Scope to one page or omit for all pages.' While it doesn't list exclusions or edge cases, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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