add_esql_xy_panel

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

The description adds important behavioral context: it states that the query is not validated server-side and that a wrong query can yield an empty panel. This is critical for the agent to understand. It also mentions the space targeting behavior手动 with a default. Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden and handles it well, though it could mention that the operation is not idempotent or destructive but that's less relevant.

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 concise, with two clear paragraphs: the first explains the tool's purpose and key parameters, and the second covers the 'space' parameter. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the main action. The only minor issue is that the space explanation is placed after the main content, but it's not off-topic.

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 the tool's complexity (8 params, 5 required, output schema exists), the description is well-rounded. It explains the core behavior, the parameter relationships, the lack of validation, and the alternative tool. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to. It could mention the types of panels it creates (bar/line/area) more explicitly, but the chart_type parameter handles that.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description itself explains the roles of x_column, y_columns, breakdown_column, esql, and space, which goes beyond the schema's raw definitions. It does not detail chart_type (though its enum values are self-explanatory) or dashboard_id and title, which are obvious from names, so the coverage is good but not exhaustive.

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 creates ES|QL bar/line/area panels on dashboards, mentions the key parameters (x_column, y_columns, breakdown_column), and distinguishes it from the alternative add_panel for field-based charts. It also indicates the panel type and the optional breakdown column, which is specific and helpful.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool (for ES|QL-based charts) and explicitly contrasts with add_panel for field-based charts, giving a clear alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it, such as for metric or table panels, which could be inferred from sibling tool names.

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