Open Tree chart app

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a non-destructive, focused operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming the app is opened. It does not elaborate on permissions, side effects, or what 'open' entails, so the description adds limited value beyond annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key aspects. It is concise with no wasted words, though a slightly more structured breakdown could improve scannability.

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 has 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description provides basic context for data and encoding but lacks explanation of the app's output, behavior differences from similar hierarchical tools (e.g., treemap), and any prerequisites. The schema fully documents parameters, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with every property described. The overall description adds a brief summary of data and encoding structure, which complements the schema without repeating details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides rich parameter semantics.

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 'Open a focused tree MCP App for hierarchical parent-child data.' It uses specific verb (Open) and resource (tree MCP App), and the sibling tools include many other chart types, so this description successfully distinguishes the tool's purpose for hierarchical data.

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 hierarchical parent-child data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., echart_mcp_view_open_treemap). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving guidance implicit.

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