get_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what 'details' includes (e.g., metadata, settings), or any potential side effects. Minimal information leaves the agent guessing.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. Structurally, it is front-loaded but could benefit from a sentence on what 'details' include.

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 complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should explain what 'details' are returned. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and minimal context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' but adds no semantics beyond the schema's name and type (number). No format, example, or validation details are provided, leaving the parameter underspecified.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get details' and resource 'chart', specifying identification method 'by ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_charts (which lists) and get_chart_data (which gets data for a chart), making the tool's purpose 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest sibling tools like get_chart_data for related needs. The implied usage is for obtaining chart metadata, but the description lacks comparative context.

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