list_charts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states that charts are listed and the index is returned; it does not mention side effects (likely read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when the sheet parameter is null. For a listing operation with no annotations, this is insufficient 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 a single sentence with no redundant information, making it concise. However, it omits important details about parameters and output format, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Still, every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description should fully cover what the tool does and how to use it. It fails to explain the output format (e.g., list of chart names with indices) and the role of session_id. For a tool that interfaces with a chart deletion workflow, more detail is needed.

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. The description mentions the sheet parameter implicitly by stating 'charts embedded in a sheet', but it does not explain the session_id parameter at all. The default behavior of the sheet parameter (null meaning active sheet?) is not clarified. This adds minimal value 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 lists charts in a sheet, specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'charts embedded in a sheet'. It also adds value by mentioning that the returned index is used by delete_chart, distinguishing it from other list tools among siblings like list_images or list_sheets.

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 usage for obtaining chart indices to delete charts via delete_chart, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_images) or provide prerequisites. The sibling set includes many list tools, and the description lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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