render_candle_pattern_diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is for visualization, takes candle data and pattern info, and outputs an SVG to be rendered via a widget. It also prohibits direct SVG output. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or authentication needs, though these are implied.

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 moderately concise, mixing Japanese and English. It front-loads the purpose with brackets but could be more structured. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'education'). It is not overly long but has room for improvement.

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 ties the tool to analyze_candle_patterns and provides usage constraints. However, it lacks explanation of the output format (SVG URL or string), error scenarios, and limitations like max candles (though schema defines max 10). Overall, it is fairly complete but leaves some ambiguity.

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 high (75%), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond linking to analyze_candle_patterns. It does not detail parameter meanings or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 it is for educational candle pattern diagrams, specifically visualizing results of analyze_candle_patterns for beginners. The verb 'レンダリング' (render) and the resource 'candle pattern diagram' are explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like render_chart_svg and render_depth_svg.

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 explicitly states when to use: only when user explicitly says 'show me a diagram' etc., and prohibits spontaneous calls. It also details output handling: pass data.svg to Visualizer widget code, and prohibits direct SVG output to chat. This provides clear context for invocation and processing.

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