generate_treemap_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 mentioning the chart's purpose ('display hierarchical data') and an example use case ('disk space usage'), but doesn't disclose important traits like output format (e.g., image URL, HTML), performance characteristics, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value but lacks rich 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 sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a concrete example. There's no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured with explicit sections, but it's efficient overall.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters with nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While annotations cover safety and the schema documents parameters well, the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., chart image, visualization object) or provide guidance on the hierarchical data structure beyond the example. For a visualization tool with no output schema, more context about the result would be helpful.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'hierarchical data' which aligns with the 'data' parameter, and the disk space example provides context for data structure. However, it doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., explaining how the hierarchical structure works or when to use specific style options).

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 treemap chart to display hierarchical data and can intuitively show comparisons between items at the same level.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('treemap chart'), and primary function ('display hierarchical data'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling chart-generation tools, which would require a 5.

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 some usage context with the example 'such as, show disk space usage with treemap,' which implies this tool is appropriate for hierarchical data visualization. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (like other chart types in the sibling list) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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