apex_add_sparkline

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description's 'Add' aligns with these. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what exactly is created or what side effects may occur (e.g., adding a region). No contradiction exists, but it doesn't enrich the behavioral profile significantly.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no fluff, with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence delivers a useful implementation hint without redundancy. 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 tool has 5 parameters, a nested metrics structure, and numerous sibling visualization tools, the description is sparse. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., existing page/region), limitations (e.g., max 7 rows for trend_sql is only in schema), or how to choose this over alternatives. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but overall the description leaves agent guidance incomplete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters including the detailed metrics structure. The description's 'sql + trend_sql' reiterates a subset of the schema info but adds little new meaning. It does hint at the required fields for metrics, but that is already explicit in the schema, so the description provides marginal added value.

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 adds sparkline mini-charts with trend lines, specifying both the action (add) and the resource (sparkline mini-charts). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like apex_add_mini_charts_row, the specific mention of 'trend lines' differentiates it somewhat. It is more specific than the mere name would be.

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 through 'sparkline mini-charts' and 'trend lines', suggesting it is for small inline trends, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The second sentence 'Provide metrics list with sql + trend_sql' reads more as parameter instruction than usage context. There are no exclusions or mentions of alternatives.

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