get_metric_dimension_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention important traits like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the dimension does not exist. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 omits essential details. It does not front-load critical information like output format or parameter constraints. The brevity here is not an asset because it sacrifices completeness.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what values are returned, how to interpret them, or handle edge cases. Given the complexity of the domain (Metabase metrics and dimensions), this description is inadequate 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 has two parameters with minimal descriptions ('Metric ID', 'Dimension key of the metric'), and the tool description adds no additional meaning. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It does not explain how to obtain the 'dimension_key' or provide examples.

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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'values for a dimension of a metric', indicating a read operation. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'search_metric_dimension_values', which likely serves a similar purpose with different filtering capabilities. A score of 4 reflects clarity but lack of differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_metric_dimension_values' or 'get_metric_breakout_values'. The description provides no context for appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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