tm1_get_cube_dimensions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the result is ordered dimensions, which is minimal. It does not describe the return format, whether it returns dimension names or objects, error behavior for invalid cube names, or any side effects.

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 short phrase with no filler, and the key concept is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but it does not waste words or repeat the tool name. The brevity is appropriate for a simple one-parameter read operation, though it could be a full sentence.

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 is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage the description should still clarify what the returned ordered dimensions look like. It does not mention whether this returns names only, includes hierarchy info, or how errors are handled. The description is too thin for an agent to confidently predict the tool's behavior.

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 for documenting cubeName. The phrase 'of a cube' implies cubeName identifies the cube whose dimensions are returned, which is useful but minimal. It does not clarify whether the name must be exact, case-sensitive, or a full path.

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 identifies the resource as the dimensions of a cube and notes they are ordered, which conveys the return content. It is brief and lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' but the tool name makes the action clear. The phrase distinguishes this from sibling tools like tm1_list_dimensions by scoping to a specific cube.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tm1_list_dimensions or tm1_get_cube_rules. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Any usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and parameter.

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