generate_pie_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 doesn't contradict this, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose. It doesn't mention output format (e.g., image file, URL), performance considerations, or error conditions, leaving gaps despite the annotations.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key usage context given the many sibling tools.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on output (what is returned?), error handling, or performance limits, making it incomplete for confident agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general purpose, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any schema gaps.

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 pie chart to show the proportion of parts' with examples like 'market share and budget allocation.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('pie chart'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from its many sibling chart-generation tools beyond the chart type.

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 for different chart types (e.g., bar_chart, line_chart), there's no mention of when a pie chart is appropriate (e.g., for proportional data) or when other charts might be better suited.

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