chart_get_state

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

Description explicitly states it's a get (read) operation, indicating no side effects. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It's transparent enough, though could mention it's safe to call at any time.

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?

Single concise sentence with all key information front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what the tool does and what state it returns. Sibling tools provide additional context. Complete for its simplicity.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100% trivial. Baseline score 4 per rubric since no param info needed. Description adds nothing about params but doesn't need to.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current chart state'), lists included fields (symbol, timeframe, chart type, indicators), and distinguishes from siblings like chart_set_symbol. Clear and unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage is clear: read current state. No explicit when-not or alternative mention, but sibling tool names provide strong context. Lacks explicit exclusions but adequate for a simple read tool.

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