create_pie_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each slice displays a percentage and returns an absolute path to a .excalidraw file, implying file creation. It also mentions optional parameters affecting output. It doesn't discuss side effects like overwriting existing files, but the core behavior is clearly described.

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 compact and well-structured: a short opening summary followed by a clear Args list and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the most important purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple diagram tool, the description covers its main function, key parameters, and return value. It doesn't explain default theme or output path behavior, but these are minor given the explicit optionality. The return type is clearly stated, and no hidden complexities are left unexplained.

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 0% for top-level parameters, so the description must supplement. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., theme as 'light' or 'dark', output_path as optional file path), which adds meaning beyond raw types. However, it omits details like default output behavior or slice color handling, leaving some semantics to inference.

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 it creates a pie chart with labeled slices and percentages. The verb 'Create' and resource 'pie chart' are specific, and the context of sibling tools makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bar/line charts, relying on the tool name to imply contrast.

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 provides no guidance on when to use a pie chart versus other chart types (e.g., bar, line). It only describes what the tool does without advising on appropriate use cases or alternatives. The implicit usage is 'when you need a pie chart,' but no explicit reasoning or exclusions are given.

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