get_dataset_related_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get' which suggests a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the tool's intent without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. For a read operation with one parameter, it meets a bare minimum but leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'id_or_uuid' parameter at all—no details on what it represents, format expectations, or examples. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the bare schema provides, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 resources ('charts and dashboards'), specifying they are related to 'this dataset'. It distinguishes from generic list tools (e.g., list_charts, list_dashboards) by focusing on dataset-specific relationships. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_dashboard_charts or get_dashboard_datasets, which might overlap in scope.

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 implies usage when you need charts/dashboards related to a dataset, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_dashboard_charts or get_dashboard_datasets. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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