plot_chart

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions FT styling and that certain parameters are advanced for map_categorical. It does not describe output format, side effects, error handling, or data requirements, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded and an advanced note appended. It is concise and free of fluff, though very brief; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and some parameter context.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the two required parameters (chart_type and data_json) are entirely unexplained, and the tool's behavior is only partially specified. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names region, bbox, bins, and category_labels with a hint about map_categorical, but it does not explain the required chart_type and data_json parameters, nor the meaning of bbox and bins values. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Generate chart with FT style', which is a specific verb+resource action that is distinct from sibling tools focused on data retrieval, comparison, and ranking. However, it does not enumerate chart types or fully differentiate its scope from potential visualization alternatives.

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 this tool is for chart generation, and the advanced note hints at map_categorical use. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like analyze_trend or compare_countries, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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