Add native vector chart

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

The description reveals behavioral traits like zero rasterization, auto-generated alt text for PDF/A, and constraints on series count for pie/donut. Annotations already indicate idempotent hint, and description adds value beyond that, though it could mention more about output format or error handling.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists features and constraints, and ends with a clear alternative. Every sentence provides value without 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 complexity (16 params, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the main behavioral aspects and usage boundaries. It lacks details on error handling or limitations like max series count, but those are in the schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides some high-level context (e.g., pie uses one series, colors are hex strings) but does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already provides for individual parameters.

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 generates a single-page PDF with native vector charts, listing specific chart types (bar, barH, line, pie, donut) and rendering method. It distinguishes from sibling tool generate_basic_pdf by noting that for embedded charts, one should use that tool instead.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (standalone chart PDF) and when not to (embedded charts: use generate_basic_pdf). It also lists supported chart types and key features, giving clear context for selection.

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