create_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states 'create timeline chart' without explaining side effects, output format, or whether this creates a new diagram or modifies an existing one. It is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is very concise and easy to parse, but given the complexity of the tool, it is arguably too brief to stand alone.

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?

The tool has a rich schema with many options but no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool produces, any limitations, or behavior beyond creation. For such a complex tool, the description is severely incomplete.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters and nested properties. The description adds no parameter information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantics, but the description does not enrich it.

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 '创建时间线图表' (Create timeline chart), using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_org_chart, create_flowchart, and create_mindmap by focusing on timeline creation.

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 implies usage when a timeline chart is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_flowchart) or any exclusions/prerequisites. It relies on the tool name and common sense.

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