Get Visualization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing which attributes a visualization carries, but says nothing about not-found behavior, cross-space lookup, or other operational traits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and the space-scoping note. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The space default is documented; the only real gap is the undocumented visualization_id parameter and any error/not-found behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain that `space` targets a Kibana space by id with the default space as fallback. However, visualization_id is left entirely undocumented in both description and schema, leaving one of two parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a library visualization) and enumerates the fields returned (title, chart type, data view, metrics, group_by, filter query), so an agent can tell it retrieves a single saved visualization rather than searching. It does not name the sibling search_visualizations or otherwise differentiate explicitly, which keeps it below a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The 'Get' verb implies single-item retrieval, but nothing tells the agent to use search_visualizations to locate an id first or how this differs from get_dashboard.

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