generate_pie_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that category values become slices, value_column is summed per category, filename can be auto-generated, and the result is a JSON with chart_path and chart_data. This provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond the tool name and schema.

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 concise and well-organized, with purpose first followed by a compact Args section and a Returns line. Each sentence contributes useful information and there is no repetition of schema 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?

The description covers the core purpose, every parameter, and the return structure, which is enough for a straightforward chart-generation tool. It stops short of covering edge cases like file overwriting, path specifics, or validation behavior, but those are not essential for initial correct invocation.

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 fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: dataset, category_column, value_column, title, and filename. It clarifies that value_column is numeric and summed per category, and that filename is auto-generated when empty.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource pair: generate a pie chart from a categorical column. It also indicates the analytical purpose—showing composition—which clearly differentiates it from sibling chart tools like generate_histogram or generate_scatter_plot.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when the composition of a categorical column is needed, with a numeric column aggregated per category. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide tool selection.

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