Get org chart as SVG

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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 with only two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it could be better structured by separating the purpose from technical details (operation, auth). No redundant words.

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 simple GET returning SVG, the description covers the purpose and basic behavior. However, it is missing parameter explanations and output format details. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description should be more complete.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage. The description does not explain the companyId parameter or provide guidance on its value. Despite the parameter being self-explanatory by name, the description should add meaning beyond the schema, which it fails to do.

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 'Get org chart as SVG', indicating the verb (get) and resource (org chart as SVG). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_org (likely JSON) and pc_get_companies_by_company_id_org_png (PNG).

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 lacks context such as when SVG is preferred over PNG or JSON, or any exclusions.

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