create_line_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the main behavioral outcome: the tool returns a base64 image or a file path. However, it does not mention disk-writing side effects, the default save_to_disk=false behavior, or the OUTPUT_DIR dependency; those are only stated in the schema.

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 compact sentence that states the core purpose and the return contract without filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though slightly sparse for a tool with 13 parameters.

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 complex 13-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: the schema fills in most parameter details, and the description states the return format. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this chart type, how to request a file vs. a preview, and what the output structure looks like when returning a path.

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 (~85%), so the baseline is appropriate. The description adds the useful fact that multiple series are supported and that output can be base64 or a file path, but it does not need to detail individual parameters because the schema already documents them well.

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 names the operation ('Создаёт линейный график') and the resource, and adds the key capability of multiple data series. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling chart tools, though the 'line chart' resource is fairly self-evident without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_bar_chart, create_scatter_chart, or create_area_chart. The description does not mention common use cases or exclusions, leaving the choice entirely to the agent based on the tool name.

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