get_embed_dashboard_tile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication requirements (token), return type (likely an image), or any side effects. For a tool that accesses embedded resources, this is a significant omission.

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 under-specified. It lacks structure such as separating purpose from details, and the brevity sacrifices clarity. Every word earns its place, but more content is needed.

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 complexity (6 required parameters, many siblings, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It provides only the barest hint of functionality, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters at all. The input object has required fields (token, zoom, x, y, card_id, dashcard_id) but none are described. The tool name and description imply coordinates and zoom, but explicit semantics are missing, making invocation error-prone.

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 action (Get) and resource (map tile for an embedded dashboard dashcard), using specific terms like 'map tile' which narrows the scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_embed_card_tile or get_public_dashboard_tile, which have similar purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many tile-retrieval functions, but the description lacks any context for selection or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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