xlsx_charts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context by stating it returns the spec (not pixels), explains sheet attribution via OOXML drawing rel chain, and confirms no rendering. No contradictions, and it enriches understanding beyond 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence, a brief example, and USE WHEN/DO NOT USE WHEN sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks parameter explanations (0% coverage). With no output schema, it partially compensates by describing the return content. However, for a tool with two parameters and nested objects, more detail on parameters is needed for full completeness.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters (file_b64, options with limit and sheet). The description mentions 'limit' and 'sheet' indirectly but does not elaborate on their purpose or constraints, leaving a significant gap for parameter usage.

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 'List every chart in a LOCAL .xlsx file' with specific details like chart type, title, axis titles, and per-series formula refs. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that xlsx_read is for cell values, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections provide clear guidance. It specifies documenting financial models or auditing for drift as use cases, and warns against using for rendering or cell values, directing to xlsx_read as an alternative.

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