generate_marble

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to disclose safety. It adds the intent of visualization but does not describe output format, limitations, or behavior for edge cases. With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters all described in the schema, and annotations are present, the description is fairly complete for a generation tool. It could include an example or note about output appearance, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand the task.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters fully. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool generates ASCII marble diagrams for visualizing RxJS stream emissions. It uses a specific verb (generate) and resource (ASCII marble diagrams), and distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_operators or execute_stream, which have different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for visualizing RxJS streams during debugging or learning, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. It is adequate but lacks explicit usage context.

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