GraphMake

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), so the description adds genuine extra context: the preview flag's effect and the fact that returned keys are the same ones used at render time. It stops short of noting auth/permission needs or pagination, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core read action, then return shape with examples, then the optional preview behavior. No filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the optional preview effect fully. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including preview's default. The description's restatement of preview=true adding the image adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one template') and enumerates exactly what is returned — size, description, and every editable text/number as key-value pairs, with concrete examples. This clearly separates it from list_templates and render_template without needing the schema.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch field keys to inspect or later mutate a template) and the note that 'the same keys change the template when it is rendered' hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or sibling routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope ('every widget... with examples'), but says nothing about size of the response, versioning, or whether the reference is static — modest added value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the covered domains after the core noun phrase. No filler, nothing that could be cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is not the description's responsibility, and a no-argument read-only reference is a simple tool. The only gap is the absence of any cue about when to reach for this reference relative to the other GraphMake tools.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific resource — the GraphMake Script language reference — and enumerates its scope (widgets, charts, themes, styles, sizes, syntax, examples). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like get_template or render_infographic, though it lacks an explicit verb to say whether it returns docs, a summary, or a pointer.

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?

No guidance on when to consult this reference versus the sibling template tools, and no statement of prerequisites or typical workflow (e.g., 'call before writing a script'). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name and content list.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the query param ranks results best-match-first rather than filtering, and the category param narrows the list — ranking behavior is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter behavior. Nothing is wasted; the field enumeration is brief and useful for scanning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and both parameters and their behavior are covered. The only gap is routing to sibling tools, which is minor for a low-risk read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that query is a relevance ranker (best matches first), not a filter, and gives concrete example terms. Category semantics are already well covered by the enum in the schema.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (GraphMake's designed infographic templates) and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, category, size, intent). It is clearly distinguishable from get_template by being a catalog list, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

It explains the effect of each optional parameter (query ranks best matches, category filters) and gives example query terms, which implies when to use them. However it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_template or render_template, and states no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the output is a URL opening an editable canvas for manual restyling/export, but it omits URL persistence, sharing/auth requirements, or whether the URL expires.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the artifact (editor URL) leads and the capabilities follow. It is efficient though slightly dense with feature lists.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only needs to explain intent and behavior, which it largely does. The main gap is routing guidance against the render_* siblings.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the script argument or adds format guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and artifact (build an editor URL) and states what the URL does (script rendered on an editable canvas). It implicitly separates this from rendering tools, but it never names render_infographic or render_template, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of hand-restyling and PNG/SVG/PDF export suggests this is the path when a human needs to edit or export. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-render_infographic statement or prerequisite guidance.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: what is returned (image plus an editor link for hand-editing and export) and how failures surface (script errors returned with the offending line number).

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 core action and output type are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by format examples, then return/error behavior. The middle section is dense and slightly run-on, but each syntactic example earns its place by making the script format concrete rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return shapes need no elaboration, yet the description still usefully covers input format, output artifacts, and error reporting for a 4-parameter tool. The one missing piece is the routing rule against render_template, which is the only plausible ambiguity in this sibling set.

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 coverage is 100%, so width/height/format are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes further by illustrating the otherwise opaque `script` parameter with concrete line syntax (title, kpi, bar_chart, timeline, row), which the schema only labels generically as 'the GraphMake Script to render'.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Render GraphMake Script into an infographic image') and clarifies the accepted formats (PNG or SVG). It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts with the sibling render_template, so an agent must infer which renderer to pick when a template is involved.

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?

It points to a companion resource ('the full syntax is in the GraphMake Script reference'), which effectively routes the agent to the graphmake_script_reference sibling, and it implies this tool takes raw script rather than a template. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs render_template, list_templates, or get_template, leaving that choice to inference.

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

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, the description adds substantial behavioral context: unspecified fields retain sample content, replacing a list changes item count, each item inherits the replaced item's colours, and the response includes both an image and an editor link.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then examples that earn their place by disambiguating the nested 'changes' format. Slightly dense with inline JSON but no filler sentences.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description covers the remaining burden: how 'changes' is structured, the preservation default, list-replacement semantics, and what comes back. Nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by giving concrete 'changes' key syntax (dotted paths like "w5.datasets.0.values", JSON arrays) and by noting that omitted keys are preserved — meaning well beyond what the schema's terse 'Field key -> new value' line conveys.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Render a template filled with new content') and immediately clarifies what 'changes' means. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling render_infographic or explain which rendering tool an agent should pick.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — you render a template by supplying its id and field changes — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as first calling list_templates or get_template to discover ids/field keys.

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