Pie Chart

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, conveying safety. The description adds that it renders interactive charts and supports themes, but does not contradict annotations. However, it does not add deep behavioral context beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and required input; second mentions themes. Front-loaded and concise.

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 essential aspects (data format, theme) but omits details on customization options (effects, donut mode, colors, legend, palette, typography). Given 7 parameters and no output schema, more context could help an agent select or configure the tool correctly.

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 86%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description mentions the core data format and theme support but does not delve into other parameters like effects, options, palette, etc. With high schema coverage, the description adds marginal value.

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 renders an interactive pie or donut chart from key-value data, specifying the input format as an array of {label, value} pairs. It distinguishes from siblings (many other render_* charts) by explicitly naming the chart type.

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 the tool is for pie/donut charts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like render_bar_chart or render_line_chart. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions are given.

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