generate_kotlin_charts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool scaffolds charts and characterizes output (animated, Canvas, gradient fills, tween animations), but it doesn't say whether files are overwritten, where code is placed, or any side effects of scaffolding.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb/resource and packs relevant feature attributes without padding.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should also address parameter roles, expected output, and side effects. It captures the artifact type but leaves an agent guessing about how to supply data and what the generated code will contain beyond the advertised visual features.

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% and the description never mentions chartTitle or dataPoints. The agent gets no help understanding how the parameters affect the generated charts, aside from the minimal schema types.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Scaffolds') and identifies the exact resource: interactive Jetpack Compose animated Canvas charts, enumerating Line, Bar, and Area variants. This separates it clearly from sibling Kotlin scaffolding tools.

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 function is clear enough that an agent can infer 'use this when generating Compose chart components,' but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool is mentioned. The sibling list hints at alternatives like design_kotlin_ui, but the description doesn't route between them.

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