create_radar_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return structure but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as potential file overwrites, permissions needed, or side effects. For a tool with zero 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 three short sentences plus labeled sections for 'Ideal for' and 'Returns'. It is front-loaded with the tool's core function, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers return values and provides a usage example, but lacks details on data shape requirements, theme/filename defaults, and potential limitations. Schema descriptions compensate partially, but overall the description could be more informative.

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 100%, so the schema documents all 6 parameters. The description adds an example (population+budget+schools+hospitals+air quality) that contextualizes value_columns and category_column, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a radar/spider chart for multi-metric comparison, using specific verbs 'create' and 'compare'. It distinguishes from sibling chart tools by naming the chart type and providing a concrete example of comparing districts across indicators.

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 a clear use case ('Ideal for: comparing districts on population+budget+schools+hospitals+air quality'), helping the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would strengthen guidance among 60+ siblings.

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