get_quick_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a non-destructive read, and it usefully discloses that the returned artifact is a minimal, customizable template, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the template is static versus generated.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with an em-dash clause that earns its place by clarifying the kind of example returned. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the nature of the return value. The one gap is not distinguishing itself from the overlapping example/reference siblings.

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%, including a detailed enum explanation for 'format' ('html' with CDN scripts vs 'esm' imports). The description adds no syntax or value guidance for 'chartType' beyond 'specific chart type,' so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a quick-start template') and constrains it to a chart type, then characterizes the output as 'a minimal working example ready to customize.' That differentiates it somewhat from siblings like get_example or get_chart_reference, but it never names or contrasts with them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it needs a starter template for a chart type. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as get_example or list_examples.

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