generate_mind_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds some behavioral context about the hierarchical structure and maximum depth (implied through the example), but doesn't mention output format (image? URL?), performance characteristics, or any limitations beyond the structure. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline 3 for adding some useful context.

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 appropriately concise (one sentence plus an example) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example clarifies the concept without unnecessary elaboration. However, the phrasing 'organizes and presents' could be slightly more direct, and the example uses 'such as' twice, creating minor 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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what a mind map is structurally but doesn't address practical usage context, output expectations, or limitations. With rich schema coverage but no output schema, the description should ideally provide more guidance about what gets returned, but it minimally meets requirements for a visualization generation tool.

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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description mentions 'hierarchical structure' and provides an example that aligns with the data parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Generate a mind map chart to organizes and presents information in a hierarchical structure with branches radiating from a central topic.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('mind map chart'), and provides a concrete example. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (other chart types), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 24 sibling tools (other chart types), there's no mention of when a mind map is appropriate versus other visualizations like network graphs, organization charts, or treemaps. The example is generic and doesn't help with tool selection decisions.

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