get_root_collection_items

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states what items are returned. It does not mention that pagination (limit/offset) and filtering (models) are supported, nor does it clarify whether subcollection items are included or if the response structure is simplified.

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 extremely concise, one sentence with no wasted words, and the verb+resource is front-loaded. While brevity is good, it misses important details, so it earns a high but not perfect score.

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 tool has three modifiable parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain pagination and filtering capabilities. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete information 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the three parameters (limit, models, offset). It does not explain their purpose, defaults, or how they control output, leaving agents to rely solely on 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'items within the root collection in Metabase', specifying the scope (root) which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_collection_items' that target specific collections. It also mentions item types (cards, dashboards, etc.), adding clarity.

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 does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It omits alternatives like 'get_collection_items' for non-root collections, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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