generate_visualization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'generate visualization chart' without explaining side effects, output format, dependencies, or error behavior. It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or what the return artifact looks like. This is a significant gap.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is appropriately concise, though it could have included a bit more detail without losing efficiency.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, and with 5 parameters, the description is under-specified. It does not explain return values, output delivery (e.g., file path, base64, URL), required sequence with generate_chart, or any limitations. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description's brevity.

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?

The description provides no parameter-level details, but the input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions and enums (e.g., colorScheme, outputFormat). The phrase 'supports multiple styles and formats' loosely references these options but adds no specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 '生成命盘可视化图表' clearly states the action (generate) and resource (命盘 visualization chart), and mentions support for multiple styles and formats. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_chart, but the term '可视化' (visualization) implies a distinct output-focused purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites, ordering with generate_chart, or cases where other tools would be more appropriate. The schema hints that chartId comes from generate_chart, but the description itself provides no usage direction.

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