superset_get_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate the return content (viz_type, params, datasource), which is helpful, but it omits any mention of auth requirements, error behavior, or performance characteristics. As a read-only get operation, the risk is lower, but this is still minimal disclosure.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool, the description covers the basic purpose and return content. However, it lacks usage guidance and context about how this fits with sibling tools (e.g., when to use get_chart vs list_charts). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the description still feels slightly sparse for a standalone tool.

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 one parameter (chart_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only says 'by id,' which merely restates the parameter name. It does not explain the format, source, or any constraints beyond what the schema already shows, leaving no added semantic 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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (chart by id), which is a specific verb+resource pattern. It also briefly lists the return fields (viz_type, params, datasource), providing additional clarity. It does not explicitly mention siblings, but the 'by id' wording distinguishes it from list_charts.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single chart when you know its id, but it does not explicitly specify when to use it over alternatives like list_charts, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is inferred from 'by id' rather than stated.

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