get_dashcard_action_params

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 states 'Get action parameters', which implies a read operation but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, read-only nature, or any side effects. For a tool that likely retrieves data (not destructive), the absence of safety assurances is a gap.

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, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be expanded slightly to include usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of nested objects (complex input), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned action parameters contain (e.g., form fields, required values) or how they are structured. The tool is moderately complex, but the description leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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 has nested properties with descriptions for dashcard_id and dashboard_id, but the top-level 'input' parameter lacks a description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying that dashboard and dashcard IDs are needed. With schema description coverage at 0% for top-level parameters, the description should compensate but does not explain the optional 'parameters' field or the role of the nested object.

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 'Get action parameters for a dashcard in Metabase' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (action parameters for a dashcard). While specific, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like execute_dashcard_action or run_dashcard_query, which are related but distinct operations.

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. For instance, it doesn't mention that this tool is typically used before execute_dashcard_action to retrieve required parameters, or that it's a read-only preparatory step. Sibling tools like get_public_dashcard_execute have different contexts but no comparison is given.

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