Treemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds no contradictions and clarifies the rendering behavior (nested rectangles, optional grouping), but does not discuss performance implications or output format beyond typical chart rendering.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds contextual value: what it is, how it works, and when to use it.

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 no output schema and high schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and typical use. Could be improved by noting limitations (e.g., large datasets) or output format, but overall sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the treemap's conceptual purpose and grouping capability ('region > country'), which helps the agent understand how to structure the data parameter effectively.

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?

Strong verb+resource combo ('Render a treemap'), with a clarifying question ('What takes up the most space?') and concrete use-case examples (budget, disk, portfolio). Differentiates from sibling chart tools by emphasizing hierarchical proportion visualization.

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?

Provides common use cases ('great for budget breakdowns...') but lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use treemap or how it compares to alternatives like bar charts or pie charts. Sibling tools are numerous but no comparative direction is given.

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