suggest_chart_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two possible return shapes (confident pick or ambiguous directive) and the required action on ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, though that is implicit for a suggestion 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: three paragraphs starting with the core purpose, followed by a critical usage guideline, and finishing with detailed return behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to call, return types, and agent action on ambiguity. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'prompt', with a basic description. The tool description adds some context about the prompt being 'plain-English diagram request' but does not elaborate on format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Suggest the best DGMO chart type for a user's plain-English diagram request.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_report or render_diagram, and the two return shapes are explicitly described.

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 explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS CALL THIS FIRST when creating a new diagram — it prevents guessing and is the authoritative selection mechanism.' It also details what to do on an 'ASK THE USER' directive, including not picking a type yourself.

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