MCP ECharts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It states what the tool generates but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid data, performance characteristics, or what the output actually looks like. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist, but it leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes helpful examples. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from usage context more clearly.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (image, data structure, etc.), doesn't mention the multiple output types indicated in the schema, and provides minimal guidance on how to effectively use this tool. The examples help but don't compensate for the significant contextual gaps.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'single indicator's current status' which aligns with the data parameter but provides no additional context about parameter interactions, constraints, or usage patterns that aren't already documented in the schema descriptions.

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: 'Generate a gauge chart to display single indicator's current status' with specific examples (CPU usage, completion progress, performance scores). It distinguishes this as a gauge chart tool from other chart types in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond the chart type name.

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 implies usage context ('to display single indicator's current status') and provides examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like other chart types in the sibling list. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or specific scenarios where gauge charts are preferred is provided.

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