tv_chart_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly claims 'Read-only,' naming the operation type, and explains the underlying cause of the failure it detects. It does not describe the output format or side effects, but for a read-only diagnostic, it adequately sets expectations.

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 efficiently structured: the essential purpose is the first sentence, followed by a concrete failure scenario, a read-only note, and a pointer to the repair sibling. Every sentence contributes distinct value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 absence of annotations, parameters, and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, why it exists (the specific failure it diagnoses), and how to follow up (tv_repair_chart). It is complete for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect behaviorally.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-related information since none exist. It does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether each chart pane has a live data session.' It then pinpoints a distinct failure mode (the single-pane reconnect loop) and explicitly contrasts with the repair sibling ('Use tv_repair_chart to fix'), making it immediately distinguishable from related tools like tv_health_check.

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 states the intended pattern: run this to detect, then use tv_repair_chart to fix. It also describes the exact scenario (a pane stuck in reconnect due to an unregistered study id), giving an agent clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list when NOT to use it or compare to tv_health_check, but the guidance is strong enough.

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