create_pie_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions creation and return format. It does not disclose the possibility of writing to disk via save_to_disk, effects of format and filename, or behavior around the output directory, which are material for an agent invoking the tool.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or repetition. It states the core function and the key output modes efficiently.

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 11 parameters, nested required data, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to fully guide invocation. It omits practical details about data shape, output formats beyond base64/path, disk side effects, theme presets, and chart text settings.

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 description adds only high-level meaning by mentioning doughnut support and base64/file-path output, which loosely map to hole and format. It does not explain the required nested data structure, colors, themes, sizes, textinfo, or save behavior, and schema coverage is only 55%, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 the tool's primary action ('Создаёт круговую диаграмму') and its unique doughnut capability, distinguishing it from line, bar, scatter, and area chart siblings. It also specifies the two return modes: base64 image or file path.

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 usage when a pie or doughnut chart is needed, which is enough to differentiate it from sibling chart tools by chart type. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, leaving selection mostly to inference.

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