scoreboard_get_bar_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The use of 'Get' and 'Returns' implies a read-only data retrieval operation with no side effects. However, the description does not disclose additional traits such as ordering, error handling, or behavior with missing data, which would be valuable for a tool without 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get team bar chart data') and includes only necessary details about the return content. No filler or redundant phrases are present.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential return values for visualization. It lists the main data components (labels, scores, team names, service scores, inject scores) but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., array vs object), which would be useful since no output schema is provided.

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, so there is no parameter information to explain. The description adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema by specifying the exact data returned (team names, service scores, inject scores), which helps an agent understand the tool's output despite having no parameters.

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's function: 'Get team bar chart data' with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'scoreboard_get_line_data' by focusing on bar chart data and explicitly listing the included content (team names, service scores, inject scores).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without any context about preferred use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like scoreboard_get_line_data.

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