create_chart_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a chart panel but doesn't describe what 'create' means operationally (e.g., does it return a chart object, save to a dashboard, generate an image?), what permissions might be needed, whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere, and every element ('创建图表面板', '显示', '指定股票', '技术指标') contributes essential information about the tool's function.

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 creates something (implied mutation) with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'create' results in (e.g., a chart ID, image data, dashboard update), doesn't cover error conditions or dependencies, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a creation tool with moderate complexity, this leaves the agent with significant unknowns.

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 description mentions '指定股票' (specified stocks) and '技术指标' (technical indicators), which aligns with the 'codes' and 'indicators' parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('创建图表面板' - create chart panel) and the target resource ('显示指定股票的技术指标' - display technical indicators for specified stocks). It specifies the type of visualization (chart panel) and the data domain (stock technical indicators). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_custom_layout' or 'get_history_market_data' which might also involve data visualization or stock data retrieval.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other visualization or data retrieval tools in the sibling list, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone without explicit contextual guidance.

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