emit_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that it converts a chart to a graph and emits text in several formats, plus the requirement/ignoring of latitude/longitude based on input type. It doesn't state side effects (likely none) but provides strong transparency for a conversion tool.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose, the second covers accepted inputs and the coordinate caveat, the third lists output formats. Information is front-loaded and directly actionable.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input types, format choices, required coordinates, and the optional classification token. An agent has everything needed to call correctly without consulting the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical inter-parameter semantics: that latitude/longitude are required when chart_json is a computed chart and ignored for an existing ChartGraph. This dependency is not evident from the schema alone, and the description also clarifies the two valid shapes for chart_json.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('chart') and clearly differentiates from sibling computation tools by stating it emits a graph in multiple formats. It names the exact input types and is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states the tool accepts output from compute_natal_chart or an existing ChartGraph, giving clear context on when to use it (post-computation or with an existing graph). It doesn't name alternatives, but the sibling set are all compute/search tools, so this emission tool is unique; there's no exclusion needed.

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