generate_organization_chart

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying it generates a visualization (a diagram) and mentioning the example relationship (CEO and direct reports). However, it doesn't disclose important traits like output format (e.g., image file, URL), whether it's interactive, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description adds moderate value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a concrete example. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly mentioning it creates visual diagrams rather than just implying it through the example.

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 (6 parameters with nested objects) and rich schema documentation (100% coverage), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool produces (a visualization/diagram) but doesn't address the output format or behavioral aspects like interactivity. With no output schema and annotations only covering read-only status, the description should ideally provide more context about what gets returned, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for this visualization 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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions hierarchical structure and gives a CEO example, which loosely relates to the 'data' parameter, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details for any parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 an organization chart to visualize the hierarchical structure of an organization.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('organization chart'), and provides a concrete example. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'generate_mind_map' or 'generate_network_graph', which might also visualize hierarchical relationships.

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 many sibling tools for different visualization types (e.g., generate_mind_map, generate_network_graph, generate_treemap_chart), there's no indication of when an organization chart is preferred over these other hierarchical or structural visualizations. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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