suggest_chart_type

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

With no annotations, the description discloses output structure (confidence, candidates, trigger phrases, pointers to get_examples) but omits potential latency, constraints, or side effects. It adds value beyond the schema but could be more thorough.

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 with three sentences covering purpose, usage, and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, fitting the 'appropriately sized and front-loaded' criterion.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and output, and references sibling tool get_examples for follow-up. It is nearly complete for a simple suggestion tool, missing only minor details like error handling or examples.

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 description 'User's plain-English diagram request.' The tool description repeats the same concept without adding new semantics, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 suggests the best DGMO chart type based on a user's plain-English request, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_chart_types by emphasizing it should be called first for new diagrams.

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 explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS CALL THIS FIRST when creating a new diagram,' providing a clear usage precedence. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the 'first call' guideline is strong and avoids confusion with alternatives.

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