get_dashboard_tables

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes read behavior ('traces through all datasources') but fails to mention side effects, authorization requirements, or performance considerations. A mutation tool would need more 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?

Description is concise with purpose upfront and structured sections (Args, Returns). No redundant sentences, but could separate the 'MAIN RCA tool' note without breaking flow.

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?

Has an output schema, so return details not needed. However, lacks information on error conditions, rate limits, or performance impacts for a potentially heavy operation. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'workbook_name'. The description adds meaning with examples (e.g., 'RCBPSlackcards') and context, compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ALL upstream tables used by a dashboard/workbook'. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_datasource_tables' by emphasizing trace through all datasources and being the 'MAIN RCA tool'.

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?

Implicitly says when to use ('answer What's behind this Tableau dashboard?') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings like 'get_datasource_tables'.

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