visualize_aggregate

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by noting it is 'real-time' and listing the multiple return formats (chart-ready data, Teams Adaptive Card, markdown table, summary). This helps the agent understand what to expect without being overly verbose.

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, information-dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, outputs, and read-only nature. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 schema covers all parameters and annotations indicate read-only/open-world semantics, the description is fairly complete. It explicitly lists the return types (chart data, Adaptive Card, markdown table, summary), compensating for the lack of an output schema, though it does not detail any error conditions or edge cases.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, though it provides usage examples for table and group_by.

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's function: 'Build a real-time chart of ServiceNow records grouped by a field' with concrete examples (incidents by priority, cases by state). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing grouping and the specific outputs (Adaptive Card, markdown table).

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 provides clear context and examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar alternatives like visualize_trend or aggregate_report. Usage is implied but not directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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