render_candle_pattern_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that direct SVG output to chat is prohibited and that the tool should only be used on request, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has other side effects, though its purpose (visualization) implies non-destructive behavior.

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 block with several sentences, covering purpose, usage conditions, output handling, and a restriction. It is not overly verbose but could be more front-loaded with the most critical instructions. The structure is functional but not tightly organized.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description explains the main use case and output delivery method, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the relationship with analyze_candle_patterns in detail or clarify expected output format beyond 'data.svg'. With no annotations, it leaves some gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema has 75% parameter description coverage, which is moderate (not high). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters like theme, title, or pattern should be used in the context of the tool, so the low coverage is not compensated.

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: it visualizes results of analyze_candle_patterns for educational purposes, and it mentions it is a candle pattern diagram. This is specific and distinct from general chart rendering tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like render_chart_svg.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions: use only when the user explicitly requests a diagram, and avoid spontaneous calls. It also explains how to deliver the output (pass to Visualizer widget). However, it does not mention alternative tools by name, which would fully differentiate.

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