get_segment_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning authentication needs, read-only nature, or what 'related items' includes. The schema adds an id parameter, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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. However, it is too minimal; it could include more information without being wordy. It earns its place but lacks structure.

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's complexity (nested parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'related items' are, the format of the response, or any prerequisites. Among many sibling tools, it provides insufficient context for an agent to select it confidently.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The schema has a nested 'input' object with an 'id' property described as 'The segment ID'. With schema description coverage at 0% (no descriptions for the top-level parameter), the description fails to explain the nested structure or any constraints on the id value.

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 related items for a segment in Metabase' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (related items for a segment). It distinguishes from siblings like get_segment (which retrieves the segment itself) and get_segment_revisions. However, it does not specify what kind of related items are returned.

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 like get_field_related, get_table_related, or get_dashboard_related. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given.

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