suggest_chart_type

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the hidden side effect of appending the language-reference section, defines both possible return shapes including the '⚠️ ASK THE USER' outcome, and prescribes agent behavior on that outcome. This is well beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core purpose and the when-to-call rule, and the result-shape and ASK-THE-USER guidance are placed last where they belong. Slightly dense, but essentially every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the two return shapes and the required agent action for each. Combined with the explicit when/when-not guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and act on this tool 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'prompt' parameter, so the schema already documents it as the user's plain-English diagram request. The description adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (suggest the best DGMO chart type) and scopes it to a plain-English diagram request. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_language_reference and list_chart_types by describing what it returns and why a separate reference call is unnecessary.

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?

It gives an explicit call-first rule for new diagrams, states the negative case (not needed when editing an existing diagram, whose first line declares its type), and names the alternative it subsumes (get_language_reference). It also tells the agent what to do on an ambiguous result: present candidates and wait for the user.

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