suggestChart

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 the tool returns 'ranked recommendations with example props,' which adds useful behavioral context about the output format. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter guidance and output information in just two sentences. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, basic parameter usage, and output format ('ranked recommendations with example props'), but it lacks details on error cases, response structure, or advanced usage scenarios, which would be helpful for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (data and intent). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the data sample size ('1-5 sample objects') and the optional intent to narrow suggestions, but it does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Recommend Semiotic chart types') and resource ('for a given data sample'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like renderChart (which renders) or getSchema (which retrieves schema). It specifies the exact verb and scope without being vague or tautological.

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 by mentioning 'Optionally pass intent to narrow suggestions,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like renderChart or diagnoseConfig. There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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