create_org_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the basic action of creating an org chart. It does not mention side effects, whether the operation is destructive or saves to the workspace, permissions needed, or what output to expect. This is a minimal disclosure that fails to convey the tool's behavioral profile.

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 phrase, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified and adds no distinct value beyond the tool name. It is not wasting words, but it also does not earn its place by providing useful information, so it merits an average score.

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 complexity of a create operation with a nested root object, missing annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the expected structure of the org chart, how it interacts with existing diagrams, or what the function returns. The description leaves critical context unaddressed.

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 input schema describes both parameters with a brief description each (root and title), giving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no parameter explanation beyond what the schema provides. The nested root object's properties lack descriptions, but since the tool-level description is silent on parameters, the baseline of 3 applies for adequate schema coverage.

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 '创建组织架构图' is a direct translation of the tool name 'create_org_chart', essentially restating it without adding any new information. It clearly names the action and resource, but because it merely repeats the name, it falls into the tautology category rather than providing a meaningful purpose statement that distinguishes it from the sibling create_* 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_flowchart, create_mindmap, or create_timeline. There is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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