Radial Cluster

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, side effects, or dependencies). With annotations covering safety, the description contributes little extra transparency.

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 two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 is minimal but adequate for a simple rendering tool with fully documented parameters and annotations. It lacks output schema information, but that is accounted for. It does not cover limitations or prerequisites, which would be useful for a chart tool.

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. The description mentions 'status colors', which relates to the metrics' status field, but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a radial cluster chart for multi-metric health checks, with multiple ring gauges showing percentage metrics and status colors. It distinctively describes the chart type, differentiating it from sibling chart renderers.

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 phrase 'Multi-metric health check?' implies usage for comparing multiple metrics, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like render_bar_chart or render_pie_chart. No exclusions or when-not-to guidance provided.

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