origin_recommend_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states a minimal behavior (recommends chart types) but omits side effects, read-only nature, or that it reads from a file path. The output schema exists but is not referenced to clarify behavior.

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 short sentence, which is concise but also under-specified. It is not front-loaded with critical information; every word is necessary but insufficient for a tool with 15 parameters.

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 15 parameters, a required path, and an output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the required path, how to specify columns, or what the output contains. The complexity demands more detail.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It vaguely mentions 'table shape, column semantics, and optional intent' but does not explain most parameters (e.g., path, x_col, delimiter, encoding). The description adds little meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool recommends chart types from table shape, column semantics, and optional intent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that actually plot (e.g., origin_plot_line) or perform other actions.

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 use this tool versus the many plotting siblings. The description does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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