chart_vision_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return mode behavior (inline image vs file_path based on max_image_bytes) and implicitly signals a read-only operation via 'read'. It does not discuss permissions or error cases, but the core behavioral trait is covered.

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 the primary purpose, then a concise note on return behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It explains the image mode but does not describe the structure or format of the other returned data (quote, indicator, OHLCV). For a tool that aggregates many data types, this is a notable gap, though the core behavior is clear.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning: the parenthetical list of content types aligns with the 'include' parameter, and the max_image_bytes threshold is already described in the schema ('Exceeded → file_only mode'). No new parameter context is provided.

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 tool's function: 'Take a screenshot and read all chart data in one call' and enumerates the content types (quote, indicator, Pine graphics, OHLCV). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_screenshot or individual data_get_* tools.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies a convenience aggregator, suggesting when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like capture_screenshot plus data_get_* tools. Usage context is inferred, not stated.

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