word_cloud

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers well beyond the schema: it discloses the webUrl return, inline-vs-link rendering by host, extra bubble/bar/table views and Save, the random-subset caveat for large lists, term rewriting of commas/semicolons, and URL-length trimming.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then progressively deeper detail; the Args block repeats the schema shape but earns its place through added semantics. Slightly long (the 'takes numbers you already have' sentence is near-redundant with the no-counting line), but nothing is filler-critical.

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?

Despite only 2 params and an existing output schema, the definition covers purpose, upstream data contracts, return behavior, rendering differences, and the practical term-count/URL-limit caveats an agent needs to build a working call. Nothing material is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it gives the terms shape (term -> weight) with an example, requires positive weights, explains proportional rescaling of non-integers, documents the separator-stripping behavior, and states max_terms default 150 plus secondary trimming for DocuSky's URL limit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Draw a word cloud of term frequencies') and pins down the engine (DocuSky's WordCloudLite). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by asserting 'This tool does no counting and no searching of its own', separating it from tag_analysis, search_documents, etc.

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?

Names the concrete upstream sources (tag_analysis counts, post_classification value/docCount pairs, terms counted from get_document) so the agent knows the correct pipeline position, and rules out using it for counting/searching. It does not name any alternative visualization tool, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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