export_dashcard_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The single sentence only restates the tool's purpose without mentioning effects such as whether it is read-only (export typically is, but not guaranteed), whether permissions are needed, or what happens when the dashcard has no query. This is insufficient for the agent to understand behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure, such as noting required parameters, return type, or usage examples. Every sentence should provide necessary information; here, the single sentence fails to convey enough detail.

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?

With a nested input schema and no output schema, the description must compensate by explaining what the export produces (e.g., file download, URL, stream), how format options work, and error conditions. It provides none of this, leaving the tool highly incomplete for effective use.

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 input schema contains 6 parameters (including nested) with basic descriptions like 'The card ID' and 'Parameter values'. Schema description coverage is marked as 0%, meaning these are not considered descriptive. The description adds no additional meaning or context for any parameter, such as format constraints, dependencies, or default behavior. This provides no added value beyond the schema.

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 'Export query results for a dashcard in Metabase' clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'query results for a dashcard'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like export_card_query (exports query results for a card) and export_dashboard_card_query (likely similar but naming suggests a different target). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so the purpose is clear but not fully distinguished from very similar named tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_card_query or export_dashboard_card_query. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This leaves ambiguity for the agent in selecting the correct tool among similar ones.

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