get_task_run_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the function. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, side effects, or pagination. The 'get' prefix implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 of 8 words, which is concise but lacks substantive information. While brevity can be good, here it sacrifices clarity and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (1 param with empty nested object, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, the purpose of the input object, or how the tool fits into the broader task run context. More detail is needed 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 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about the single required parameter 'input' (an empty object). The description does not hint at what the input should contain (e.g., task run ID), leaving the parameter semantics entirely undefined.

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 entity types tracked by task runs in Metabase' specifies the verb (Get) and the resource (entity types tracked by task runs), clearly distinguishing from siblings like get_task_run or list_task_runs. However, it does not clarify what constitutes an 'entity type', leaving some ambiguity.

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, such as when to use get_task_run or list_task_runs. It does not mention any prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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