Treemap

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 does not contradict this and adds context about the chart type but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 very concise, using two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately convey value. Every phrase is purposeful and avoids redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: chart type, hierarchical grouping, and example use cases. It could mention parameter requirements briefly, but high schema coverage mitigates the gap.

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 the schema handles most parameter meaning. The description reinforces the data parameter's role with 'value' and 'group' but adds minimal new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 treemap, defines its purpose as visualizing 'what takes up the most space' with nested rectangles sized by value, and distinguishes it from sibling chart tools by mentioning optional hierarchical grouping.

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 provides concrete use cases like budget breakdowns, disk usage, and portfolio allocation, offering context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude other chart types or mention alternatives, but the examples help guide selection.

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