admin_injects_get_bar_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the aggregation ('summed'), grouping ('per blue team'), and permission ('White team only'), which is useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or any edge cases, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The essential information is delivered immediately.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description gives adequate context: what data is returned (summed scores), grouped by blue team, and who can access it. It doesn't explain the response shape, but the name 'bar_chart' and sibling context make that less critical.

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?

The schema has zero parameters and schema_description_coverage is 100% (vacuously). No parameter details are needed, and the description adds no misleading information. Baseline 4 applies.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('summed inject scores per blue team'), with a specific access scope ('White team only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like admin_injects_get_scores, which likely provide raw scores or different aggregations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scoreboard_get_bar_data or admin_injects_get_scores. The 'White team only' note is an access restriction, not a usage recommendation or exclusion.

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