create_combined_dashboard

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that an image is created and does not disclose side effects like save_to_disk writing to OUTPUT_DIR, output format behavior, return value, or prerequisites for panels. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that can persist files.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, given the tool has 14 parameters and nested objects, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though the structure itself is clean.

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 is insufficient for a complex tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a deeply nested panels array. Critical context is missing: how panels must be arranged, what output formats are possible, whether a file is saved, and what the return value is.

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 low (~36%), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain the required panels structure, row/col coordinates, format options, theme_preset values, or spacing parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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?

Description uses a specific action ('Создаёт комбинированный дашборд') and resource ('из нескольких графиков и диаграмм на одном изображении'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling single-chart tools. It tells the agent exactly what the tool produces.

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 use when multiple charts/diagrams need to be combined, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over single-chart siblings or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion like 'for a single chart use create_line_chart instead', so guidance is only implicit.

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