generate_pie_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior for invalid data (e.g., negative values, empty array beyond schema minItems), nor explain how proportions are calculated or what happens with duplicate categories. No mention of output format (e.g., URL, base64).

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it includes examples that are also present in the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

With no output schema and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (image, file path?), nor differentiate from 14 sibling chart tools beyond the basic purpose. Lacks guidance on when this chart type is appropriate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context ('market share, budget allocation') but does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond schema examples, such as the meaning of innerRadius or theme.

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 verb 'generate' and resource 'pie chart', and provides examples of usage like 'market share and budget allocation'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as donut charts (which this tool can produce via innerRadius).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives examples but does not specify when not to use a pie chart (e.g., for many categories) or mention sibling tools. The innerRadius param is not highlighted for donut usage.

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