rc_get_chart_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavior burden and does make the non-mutating, discovery nature clear. However, it does not disclose the exact response shape, whether any filtering constraints apply, or possible error conditions, leaving some behavioral 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 tight sentences with the action and resource front-loaded. The second sentence gives practical sequencing guidance without any filler or 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?

For a simple single-parameter discovery tool, the description plus the enum schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description states what will be learned; it only misses explicit context about how the returned options relate to other tool calls.

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 covers chart_name fully with an enum of all valid chart values and a description ('The chart to get options for'). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond tying the discovery intent to the chart parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and names a concrete resource: available filters, segments, and resolutions for a specific chart. It clearly positions the tool as the pre-query discovery step, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rc_get_chart that actually query chart data.

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?

It explicitly says to use this before querying a chart, which is clear, actionable guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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